futile (/ˈfyo͞odl/), adjective – incapable of producing any useful result; pointless.
I find a great deal of talk about theoretical morality; yet never about practical morality (not a significant amount, at least). Perhaps this is because we do not have moral liberty in our modern society. We might have collective liberty – as in general, societies have great freedom to do as they please; and in general, others will respect others; etcetera – yet can we have personal, moral liberty?
The world saw in 2020 how strong the impact of “cancel culture” is, and how sudden our friends, job, and family can be taken away in an instant. The world has also seen for the last hundreds of years the ‘Make World Hunger History’ campaigns – which in the end just make the rich richer, the poor poorer, and the hungry hungrier.
We may also be punished for making the morally right action. If all these are true, then do we truly have moral liberty? In our virtuous goal of creating a space where everyone has the ability to do what they wish, it ended up to where we have even less freedoms than before.
There are a few main angles in which we have lost our freedoms, and to where our wishes to perform great, moral actions have now become futile – the most interesting of which is through organized society.
In this sense, there are certain extreme circumstances in which the law or physical external factors (e.g. imprisonment) contribute to moral choices being reduced down to mere legal choices.
Take the famous Trolley case; you are a worker and you see that a trolley has broken its brakes and is barreling straight towards 5 workers on the tracks. But, you also have the ability to pull a lever and redirect the trolley onto a separate path where one worker is blissfully unaware. You are in quite a dilemma, should you divert the trolley, or should you let it run its due course?
There is much theoretical discussion around this topic, yet one thing is clear – either choice would be futile. Let us say that saving the five workers’ lives is the morally right option; you will inevitably be arrested and charged with murder. You will lose your job, lose your income for the foreseeable future – and will not be able to provide for you or your family. This results in an almost worst-case scenario- while you saved five lives, you will have your reputation and résumé tarnished forever.
It does not matter if you are able to provide a strong argument on the morality of your actions, no, because in the end, you went against the legally accepted action.
This is, of course, an extreme case filled with details that most of us will probably never go through. However, it is indicative of a larger problem in society – the strict legality. We have come to presume that whatever the law is, is moral (when in fact it should be the opposite, with morality deciding the law). Even should a lawyer out there defend you for your actions – the mere threat of having your possessions taken away, your paycheck cut, a fine, or imprisonment is more than enough for most people to never even think about going against the law in the name of morality (there are a few who would regardless, but not nearly the majority).
There is a sort of stubborn absolutism and blind following of the law that makes people never question its ethicality. Yet, most individuals will never be able to question it – because civil society is organized in a way to prevent this.
We are more occupied with how we can pay our rent than with theoretical case studies; we are more occupied with how we can afford more McDonald’s, than with discussing how to promote the intellectual betterment of society; and we are more occupied with celebrity matches or political scandals, than we are with how futile our actions are in the grand scheme of things.
Naturally, moral actions are not futile – perhaps I was using the word to exaggerate (after all, moral progress seems to have been made in some areas – though that is an issue for another time). Yet what is true is that moral actions (giving money to charities, most social justice causes, etc.) seem futile and trivial. Seem is an odd word, especially in this context, since philosophers have dictated that moral progress has been made and that we (in a pseudo-humanist perspective) have the potential as individuals to change the world. The philosophers champion humanism while humanity is at the same time collapsing in on itself through wars and idiocy.
As an organized society, we have lost the ability to formulate and execute moral decisions and actions because of a perception of futility. This perception in turn results in a realized futility of moral actions – a never-ending cycle.
And this perception is due to a variety of reasons, ranging from the organization of society, to worldly distractions, to the burden of the taxes or stresses of modern life, to the institution of an absolute law, and it seems to the ever-increasing feelings of worthlessness on this planet.
I shall resolve to donate an extra dollar to a charity the next time I am at a store’s cash register, and I shall also hope that when I wake up the next day, world hunger will be solved. Yet it will not, and that dollar – in all impactful sense – was futile.
About the author
Alex Diaz is a high school sophomore with an interest in all things philosophy and politics. He is also very passionate about his cats, books, and a nice walk every now and then.