Navigating Morality: The Illusion of Being True to Yourself
Written on
Chapter 1: The Dilemma of Self-Authenticity
In the opening section of this chapter, the author posits that human beings thrive when they align their actions with their inherent design. However, many people increasingly dismiss the notion of an underlying design, along with the existence of a designer, leading to a struggle in defining morality without a clear direction.
This paragraph will result in an indented block of text, typically used for quoting other text.
Section 1.1: The Misinterpretation of "Good"
As we navigate our lives in pursuit of goodness, we first encounter the challenge of defining what "good" actually signifies. The absence of a recognized ideal form complicates our personal development and makes it difficult to establish standards for others.
A prevalent piece of advice often begins with the phrase "be true to yourself," suggesting that this approach fosters self-esteem, self-respect, and happiness. This perspective tends to be overly individualistic.
Google AI provided this explanation:
Living authentically means acting in accordance with your own values and feelings rather than conforming to the expectations of others. It encourages you to abide by your own standards and disregard public opinion.
So, the recommendation is to follow your feelings and values. However, after generations of embracing this idea, happiness appears to be on the decline.
If Brown's argument holds, this decline may stem from individuals engaging in behaviors that diverge from their designed purpose, as the concept of design has been largely neglected.
When our functioning is disconnected from a broader conversation about our intended purpose, questions of identity (who we are) and action (what we do) become less about reality and more like a buffet of choices. (p. 28)
With limitless options, we struggle to define what constitutes goodness universally and even for ourselves. Our attention shifts inward, prompting us to discover what feels good without any clear guidance.
The danger lies in leading an incoherent life. We aspire to be good, yet we possess only a vague understanding of what "good" entails. We may express concern over the decline of our moral values, but when asked to define moral excellence, we often respond with uncertainty. (p. 29)
Section 1.2: Frameworks for Moral Judgment
So, how do we determine our actions in the absence of a shared moral framework? Brown introduces the E-3 paradigm, stating that without a commonly accepted morality, "people rely on three main criteria to assess what is good." (p. 33)
- Efficiency: Good actions yield positive outcomes.
- Equity: Goodness equates to fairness and equality.
- Enforceability: Goodness is what is legally permissible.
Brown plans to delve deeper into these criteria later in the book. While he acknowledges that these are not inherently bad standards, he argues that they lack connection to a "larger moral vision." (p. 33) This disconnection renders them insufficient and vulnerable to corruption.
A 2015 Gallup poll highlighted that 42% of Americans viewed the overall moral state of the nation as poor, with 74% believing it was deteriorating. This suggests that the self-definition experiment is not yielding favorable results.
Chapter 2: The Role of Rationality vs. Intuition
The first video, "Why 'Be True to Yourself' is Bad Advice," discusses the implications of self-centered advice and its disconnect from moral grounding.
We lack a definitive understanding of goodness, yet we sense that something is amiss. How, then, do individuals arrive at moral judgments?
Brown presents two perspectives: rationality and intuition. He explains that much of Western philosophy advocates for a reliance on rational analysis rather than on intuitive or emotional responses to moral dilemmas. (p. 21)
In contrast, psychologist Jonathan Haidt suggests that people possess an intuitive sense of right and wrong, which they subsequently rationalize.
In one of his experiments, Haidt offered atheists $2 to sign a contract agreeing to sell their souls. For those who don't believe in God or an afterlife, the rational choice would be to accept the money. However, 77% declined, unable to articulate their reasoning. (p. 21)
Haidt's findings indicate that moral decisions often stem from intuition first, followed by attempts at rational justification. He posits that our intuitions are shaped by evolutionary instincts that promote survival by avoiding disgust. (p. 22)
For more insights into Haidt's work, consider exploring further literature on his findings.
Brown, however, diverges from Haidt regarding the origin of our intuitions. He argues that they stem from an intrinsic understanding of our purpose—our telos.
But what if our intuition signals something more profound? What if our emotional reactions are not merely survival mechanisms but a drive toward an inherent order? An appeal to an external standard? (p. 22)
Conclusion: The Search for True Fulfillment
At the chapter's outset, Brown recounts two news stories from the early 1990s. One story celebrates a family's heroism during a train crash, where parents sacrificed their lives to save their children. The other recounts a mother who drowned her toddlers to please her boyfriend.
These narratives elicit strong intuitive responses: admiration for selflessness in the first story and disgust for selfishness in the second.
Brown questions why we have such reactions, asserting that they arise from an innate sense of order. The Christian narrative posits that our moral reactions reflect an external moral reality rather than random emotional responses. This perspective suggests that our intuitions affirm the existence of a fixed moral order. (p. 23)
Ultimately, true fulfillment is found when our actions align with our designed purpose. The self-definition approach we have explored in recent decades does not lead to genuine satisfaction.
This implies that understanding our telos—how we are meant to function—should serve as the guiding moral framework for achieving human flourishing. Our purpose is to love God and love others.
The story of the parents who sacrificed their lives for their children exemplifies the ultimate expression of love, while the tale of the mother who harmed her children for personal gain illustrates moral failure.
In the following chapter, Brown will explore the E-3 paradigm in greater detail, highlighting how each element functions. However, he warns that any apparent success achieved through these criteria is merely a "mirage" when divorced from consideration of our purpose. (p. 35)
The second video, "Be Yourself' Is Bad Advice - Why Authenticity Is So Tricky," provides further insights into the complexities of self-identity and moral judgments.
References: Brown, Kevin J. Designed for Good, Chapter 1, "The Perfect Version of Ourselves." Hendrickson Publishers, 2016.