My Theory of Morality

Apologies to Kyle. And to the shrimp.

Recently, the question of morality resurfaced online in terms of shrimp: If you could give your own life to save a million shrimp, wwyd?

Earlier today, Kyle Star posted his take. It’s not an uncommon take and I applaud his consistency.

image idea inspired by Kyle’s

But I want to use this opportunity to explain why if my life were at stake, I’d kill every one of those million shrimp. I’d kill a billion, or 10⁵⁰⁰ with almost no hesitation, and, I’d feel morally justified in doing so. I’m not saying I’m stone cold and wouldn’t feel bad. I’d probably throw up- heck, I even gag when my wife needs me to kill a spider. But morally, I’d have no doubt about what the “right” thing is to do.

Of course, this is not really about the shrimp, it’s about the morals. As you can guess, I would not only kill shrimp to save my life. I eat cow and chicken and (kosher) fish, and am morally comfortable doing so.

I don’t like animals in pain and would never ever torture an animal needlessly- point is: I would kill shrimp to save my life, I’m not vegan and I want justify myself.

---

Why Morals?

The first point of order, although you may be sick of this argument already, is: why are there morals at all?

Sam Harris be damned, given an atheistic premise, I simply see no reason why I should care about morals. Sure, I may not kill anyone: that makes me feel bad. And I care about myself.

But is it proper to give an actual prescription/moral code for anyone else? You can choose a certain morality for yourself, but that’s a choice (free or not) you made. I am not bound by your choice.

Harris wrote a long book arguing that if so, why does religion or God make things any better? And I’m not going to hem and haw right now about God being all-perfect and us dogmatically following His will. At the end of the day, we have free will, and it’s our choice to be good or bad even if there is a God who prescribes otherwise.

In other words, Sam may be correct that this question of “why morals?” applies even if there is a God. But where he takes it (that therefore anyone is justified in being moral) I disagree with. Strongly.

What changes with God - and where morality really fits into the picture - is something else entirely.

Selflessness as a Stand-Alone is Misguided

Here’s where I think people make a mistake: they assume morals are about selflessness. They are, of course, a part of the morality picture, but they are actually a zoomed in picture of the real story.

In truth, from both a religious or from an atheistic perspective, I’m sorry to say this, but selfishness is all there is and all there can be (dw, I’ll explain). Instead, the way to look at it is that there are two different levels of selfishness:

1. Small-minded (selfish) selfishness

2. Bigger-minded (selfless) selfishness

For example:

I want to eat that slice of cake. I don’t want to exercise. “Small-minded selfishness” means I eat the cake and skip the workout, because the short-term, small-minded, selfish being desires cake and abhors the idea of getting off of the lazy chair and doing the work.

However, I am conflicted. Because I also want long-term health and less net-pain. I know that eating the cake and not exercising with have consequences down the line. On the other hand, bigger-minded selfishness ignores the cake, pushes through the laziness, and gets up to exercise because it sees a bigger picture.

If I follow my immediate inclinations, I get short-term satisfaction but regret it later. If I’m wise, I endure the struggle - unpleasant at the time! - but it produces greater net-happiness. And much more than just later + bigger happiness (delayed but greater gratification); the struggle itself becomes part of the eventual satisfaction.

This is how I try to live in general. I’m married, and with kids. It’s not easy. But I do it, perhaps not always perfectly, but I do it. Because the relationships I build, the joys of watching my cutie-pies and their little, stupid accomplishments (one of my daughters just learned how to jump onto the couch, can you imagine??) make it worthwhile. I end up with more joy, and fuller joy in life.

That is “selfless selfishnesses.” From a purely selfish standpoint, I end up with more net-happiness.

The reason to be selfless isn’t a moral code which is a demand that anyone follow. But because I love my kids, I will try to teach them about this because it’s wise. It’s a great prescription and and excellent suggestion for life. It means more net-happiness and less net-pain.

So yes, I give my children candy and cake and I try to give them a good time and we have a really happy, fun, immediate-pleasure family. Because that’s happy and healthy. But we also have chores, responsibilities, structures, where they learn what it means to feel accomplished and what it means to see satisfaction. (At least we try.) Because we love them and that means we want the best for them. And that includes teaching them how to have better net-happiness.

That’s why I say: it’s not moral to be selflessly selfless. It’s stupid. If I were going to die into nothingness, why would I give up my life for the shrimp? Why would I care about morals at all? It sounds morally superior and catchy to say you would do it (if at least in theory) but to me it just seems stupid. (Sorry Kyle;)

The reason selflessness matters, and it does, is because the selfless self is actually a better self. If this sounds “selfish” to the reader, technically they’re correct. But really I’m just stating facts: Morality doesn’t matter, but it is wise to be a selfless person, and even if it’s selfish, it’s really, really hard to be selfless in this way, and that struggle is what morality is about to me.¹ How religious dogmatism and actual demands on people could follow from here is a separate discussion; it has to do with even more wise and prescriptive ideas but we’ll leave that for now. (I’m happy to discuss some of them in the comments.)

A few questions may be bubbling in your mind, and I have more to say to clarify, but it’s really a separate, second step. I was going to put it in a new post, but let’s just get it out over here.

“God’s Eye View”

I want to now frame this differently, to bring out this point in a new, clearer light.

Each of us has more than one “identity”:

• as an individual,

• as a family member,

• as a community member,

• as part of mankind.

Think of a brick. The brick has its individuality- it has its own size, its own shape, it takes up its own space. It is the “I” of its world. But to the outside observer, the brick is only ever just a part of a house. Its truest identity, clear to the outsider, is its role in that bigger structure.

This always fascinated me. When we look out into the world, we see ourselves as individual within our circles. Pick any group- in school there’s always “me + my class.” In my family, community, workplace, I see “me + my family,” “me + my circle.” I see myself as an individual within my own life. But when I look at other classes or other families, I just see a blob of people. I see a class. Sure, the class is made up of a bunch of kids, but I see it as a group with random strange faces making up said class.

But for the kids in the other class, it’s reversed. They see themselves as a “me + my class” and they see my class a blob of faces, mine just being another one in that mix. For people looking at my family from the outside, they see it just as I see theirs- a “mass” of people forming this group called a family.

(I hope I’m being clear…)

Each individual within a group sees its own “I,” while outsiders just see the group as a whole.

That’s the fascinating thing. We are blinded by our own existence. Only I see my world in that way; everyone else sees me for what I really am: part of a group. I feel like a whole individual universe, but my “true reality” seen by anyone other than me, is that I am just part of some larger wholes- marriages, families, communities, humanity.

That said, our personal identity, the one that we peer out of and see our world, the one only we see, is also real. Our individuality doesn’t get erased. In fact, our personal strengths and weakness are what make up the color, orchestra and beauty of humanity. However, that personality finds its real meaning inside those bigger structures. The more one looks at the bigger picture, where he sees his individuality as a place within a larger structure, the more he will be able to strengthen the system and make society stronger and better.

This idea is worthy of it’s own post, but this gives a sharper image to what we are discussing.

Morality is not just about selflessness, it’s about growing into a bigger, more encompassing self, appreciating my identity as the group that I’m in. It’s about an extremely empa-sympa-thetic, caring, giving worldview where the “selfishness” is more “selfless” because of the innate understanding that the best version of my “self” is the one who is a part of a bigger structure.

Taking that into account, morality means that I see myself as bigger than my immediate body; I don’t end where my nose ends. I am a brick that sees the house as its truer identity, and if something is happening to the house, it is happening to me.² That is greatness.³ That is selflessness. That is the ability man has to take himself out of his personal POV and look from “above” and obtain a true bigger picture selfishness.

If one has a choice to lose his life or his child’s, he gives up his, but because he appreciates that his own personal identity is smaller and less important than his larger one which includes his child’s life. He sees his familial identity as bigger and truer and giving up his personal identity for them isn’t killing himself; it’s retaining his truer self. He has more joy knowing that his circle, his “house” is still around despite his absence, than if he’d let his larger identity be destroyed.

I guess if one feels so connected to the world that he feels shrimp are part of his identity and he selflessly chooses to annihilate himself because of the poor shrimp, so be it. I think he’s missing some screws.

Just Some Closing Shrimp Thoughts

I’ve made my general point but i can’t resist adding one more question to the particular shrimp conversation: who said millions of shrimp even add up to more net-happiness than a single day of deep human joy? Even if shrimp technically feel “3% of our pain,” maybe a single beautiful moment of true human happiness - or even the depth of human sadness contemplating death - outweighs all the shallow little sensations of the millions of shrimp. If so, to kill oneself and go through that agony, plus losing a beautiful day in this world, may have caused a worse overall well-being with the millions of shrimp who will die into oblivion, not knowing any better. Just some food for thought.

1. This might be a jarring concept for my fellow religious Jews, but there are ample sources attesting to this, besides for the moral clarity this brings. (See Rashi, Shabbos, top of 88b, besides that this is the root of everything, that He is a מטיב exclusively etc..)

In practice, everyone should follow Avos 1:3 (אל תהיו כעבדים).

I’ll write a few short words on this point, the baalei machshava point out that while one is in the state of wanting the cake, the idea of exercising self-control and waiting feels like someone else’s desire, not his own. And when it comes to struggles with mitzvos, like fighting to get up for davening, it is Someone Else’s will. And doing what He wants as opposed to what you want, is the root of Kvod Shamayim in this world and is what we are here for. See Avos 2:4 (עשה רצונו) and Sfas Emes somewhere. Not really for Substack, but still worth mentioning.

2. This is more than reminiscent of the famous story attributed to Rabbi Aryeh Levin when he accompanied his wife to the doctor because she hurt her foot and he told the doctor, “Our foot hurts.” Really well said!

3. Of course, see introduction to Shaarei Yosher. I’m basically reframing his point.