moral blind spots

[Amberlen]

I don't know if I agree with that at all. While SF is a product of now and reflects our hope and dread, much of the purpose of SF is to illustrate the dramatic results of purely speculative situations. Margaret Atwood may feel and write differently, but that doesn't mean Vernor Vinge is operating the same way.


That's the history, and given the way the universe was understood to operate in those times, the laws made sense. No one wants to have family members turned into pillars of salt.

But the evolution of law is always away from purely "moral" social codes and toward laws that protect the ability to do commerce. And while we are still in that process, much of the 20th century has been about removing "moral" barriers to free trade between citizens - like Jim Crow. Our laws are increasingly ethical rather than moral, and the morals that aren't codified in some sort of penalizing law are less and less observed. At some point, there won't be any laws protecting "decency" at all because they will have been shown to negatively impact individual livelihoods.

I hesitate to wade into this one, just from reading through,I would certainly be odd man out.... but I am curious as to whether you believe there actually is right and wrong.... based on themselves entirely, regardless of economics, morals,situation,ethics or anything else? Maybe I am reading you wrong, but it came across as a cynical outlook from the above post..is that my misinterpretation?

 

[Onyx]

I hesitate to wade into this one, just from reading through,I would certainly be odd man out.... but I am curious as to whether you believe there actually is right and wrong.... based on themselves entirely, regardless of economics, morals,situation,ethics or anything else? Maybe I am reading you wrong, but it came across as a cynical outlook from the above post..is that my misinterpretation?

"Morals" aren't right or wrong, which is why "good" people reject bad morality. Morals are more a guide post for those who aren't able to sense right and wrong on their own and can instead check the rule book when they are unsure.

There is very little that could be said to be universally "wrong". Killing in self defense, stealing to feed your family, etc demonstrate the lack of universal yardstick. Right and wrong are individual, situational decisions that people have to make when presented with a dilemma.


I certainly believe in my ability to tell right from wrong. I just don't think I could necessarily teach it, and think we have morals, ethics and laws to allow society to function even when everyone can't judge righteously.

 

[Amberlen]

"Morals" aren't right or wrong, which is why "good" people reject bad morality. Morals are more a guide post for those who aren't able to sense right and wrong on their own and can instead check the rule book when they are unsure.

There is very little that could be said to be universally "wrong". Killing in self defense, stealing to feed your family, etc demonstrate the lack of universal yardstick. Right and wrong are individual, situational decisions that people have to make when presented with a dilemma.


I certainly believe in my ability to tell right from wrong. I just don't think I could necessarily teach it, and think we have morals, ethics and laws to allow society to function even when everyone can't judge righteously.

soo, i agree with the first statement, wholeheartedly. But very few things universally wrong? i think there are definitely things universally wrong(and right)...if , as human beings, we cant agree on even basic rights and wrongs..and teach and instill that into future generations, that is for sure a recipe for darkness.
no offense @Onyx

 

[Onyx]

soo, i agree with the first statement, wholeheartedly. But very few things universally wrong? i think there are definitely things universally wrong(and right)...if , as human beings, we cant agree on even basic rights and wrongs..and teach and instill that into future generations, that is for sure a recipe for darkness.
no offense @Onyx

I think I'd stick with "very few things are universally wrong", because we constantly point to the exceptions necessary for the greater good. In a strict moral framework it would always be rape to do a body cavity search, and it would always be murder to kill a murderer. Which is why most people don't have a lot of patience for total pacifism.

I'm not saying that any of this is relativism. I'm saying that right and wrong are judgments requiring the ability to understand subtlety, while moral are mechanistic codes that don't tolerate the use of judgment. Someone can be good without ever having a moral code to state.

 

[Amberlen]

ack, body cavity search=rape is getting WAY more nitpicky than i would have. but you are saying within a moral framework. i am saying i think we can disregard "moral" frameworks, bc , you are correct, there is no standard. what i am saying is i believe there are intrinsic "rights" and intrinsic "wrongs"
ie. it is intrinsically wrong, no matter circumstances to rape someone. etcetera etcetera

 

[Onyx]

ack, body cavity search=rape is getting WAY more nitpicky than i would have. but you are saying within a moral framework. i am saying i think we can disregard "moral" frameworks, bc , you are correct, there is no standard. what i am saying is i believe there are intrinsic "rights" and intrinsic "wrongs"
ie. it is intrinsically wrong, no matter circumstances to rape someone. etcetera etcetera

Agreed. And I'm saying that every time you try to codify right and wrong by writing down a moral framework, you are going to run into these judgment issues that show the limitations of such a code. Which is kind of an interesting line between the rules of the Old Testament and the parables of the New Testament.

Right and wrong stand free of easily declared morals.

 

[Amberlen]

@Onyx i think we are generally on the same side..just not set on all the details

 

[Joshua Jones]

I think I'd stick with "very few things are universally wrong", because we constantly point to the exceptions necessary for the greater good. In a strict moral framework it would always be rape to do a body cavity search, and it would always be murder to kill a murderer. Which is why most people don't have a lot of patience for total pacifism.

I'm not saying that any of this is relativism. I'm saying that right and wrong are judgments requiring the ability to understand subtlety, while moral are mechanistic codes that don't tolerate the use of judgment. Someone can be good without ever having a moral code to state.

With all due respect, I think the weakness of your position is that you are looking at actions divorced from intentions and/or consequences and making moral judgments regarding those actions. This has always been the weakness of pragmatic ethical systems like deontology, as you rightly note. However, There are at least two other major branches of ethics which haven't fully been explored here (at least to my knowledge).

Utilitarian Ethics is the position that the outcome of an action is the central concern of ethics, and the goal should be to cultivate as much "good" as possible for as many people as possible. Now, there are dozens of different forms of Utilitarian Ethics, but they all basically attempt this above point. The advantage of this position is that it avoids the problems you mention, as the outcome is the focus, not the action. So, using your cavity search example, there is a logical reason in Utilitarian Ethics that rape is different than a cavity search; the former causes immense suffering for no benefit to the sufferer, while the latter benefits the sufferer in that there are reduced quantities of deadly weapons present, and therefore, the person is safer, as well as reduced quantities of contraband that is often the cause of violence in settings where cavity searches are more common. This good outweighs the bad of the cavity search. However, there is a significant weakness. If a person is gang raped by enough people, eventually, he or she will loose consciousness and/or die, and the number of subsequent attacks becomes irrelevant. The damage has been done, and whether the victim is assaulted by 3 or 300 more is virtually irrelevant. However, the attackers are deriving some pleasure from the attack, and if you add enough attackers into the mix, it is hard to overcome the argument that their pleasure outweighs the victims' pain. To put it another way, if the pain of gang rape until death is a -100, and the pleasure each attacker derives from the attack is 0.5, then, once the 201st attacker is done, the situation becomes a net positive. And, if it is a net positive, according to Utilitarian Ethics, it is morally right. Now, I am reasonable sure that we all would argue that gang rape can never be morally right, but one would be hard pressed to establish why under Utilitarian Ethics. Hence, as a theory, I think it is lacking.

In contrast, Virtue Ethics is the position that things are right or wrong based on what sort of people we are or become based on what we do. In other words, why we do what we do is just as significant as what we do, and both add up to develop our moral character. So, going back to the cavity search, few people who perform them actually want to, and they only do it because they believe the prison system is safer and better without the contraband smuggled in orifices. Further, rape is the violent dehumanization of a person for the sake of selfish pleasure, whereas cavity searches are in the best interest of the prison society (or so it is believed, anyway). Therefore, one action is selfish, and the other is selfless. Should a guard take sadistic pleasure in performing these checks, that person is not exhibiting a virtue, but a vice, and therefore is morally wrong, even though the actions haven't changed. However, the weakness of this position is there are often contrasting virtues in a given situation. Assuming the virtues of honesty and protection of those in mortal danger, it could be difficult to work out the proper moral action/attitude when a murderer asks you where his victim, who just ran by and hid, went. Personally, I think this issue can be resolved if virtue is seen as singular gem with myriad facets, but that is a conversation for another time.

So, all this to say, the subject of ethics is vastly more complicated than is commonly portrayed, and only one major branch of ethical theory is primarily concerned with an action itself. And, to address the OP, much of it will depend on what sort of ethical system is adopted and what field of study is the basis for this. If it is a scientific based utilitarianism, they may see the proliferation of religion as ghastly, as it (in their minds) only creates false hopes and interferes with our progress as a species. If it is a religious utilitarianism, they may see our lack of forced conversion as ghastly, as this may ensure the condemnation of millions (assuming, of course, that they believe that forced conversion is legitimate conversion).

(For anyone who may be interested in more information on these, this [Virtue Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)] and this [Consequentialism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)] provide good introductions on the subjects)

 

[Joshua Jones]

Just to bring my above, excessively long essay back into relevance for SFF and writing, there is an opportunity for some very compelling writing based on varying ethical theories, assuming they are presented fairly. One could take a scientific utilitarian and a scientific virtue ethicist and have this disagreement, and how they look at the world differently, fuel their conflict. Done correctly, it can make the protagonist and antagonist deeply relatable.

 

[Onyx]

With all due respect, I think the weakness of your position is that you are looking at actions divorced from intentions and/or consequences and making moral judgments regarding those actions. This has always been the weakness of pragmatic ethical systems like deontology, as you rightly note. However, There are at least two other major branches of ethics which haven't fully been explored here (at least to my knowledge).

Utilitarian Ethics is the position that the outcome of an action is the central concern of ethics, and the goal should be to cultivate as much "good" as possible for as many people as possible. Now, there are dozens of different forms of Utilitarian Ethics, but they all basically attempt this above point. The advantage of this position is that it avoids the problems you mention, as the outcome is the focus, not the action. So, using your cavity search example, there is a logical reason in Utilitarian Ethics that rape is different than a cavity search; the former causes immense suffering for no benefit to the sufferer, while the latter benefits the sufferer in that there are reduced quantities of deadly weapons present, and therefore, the person is safer, as well as reduced quantities of contraband that is often the cause of violence in settings where cavity searches are more common. This good outweighs the bad of the cavity search. However, there is a significant weakness. If a person is gang raped by enough people, eventually, he or she will loose consciousness and/or die, and the number of subsequent attacks becomes irrelevant. The damage has been done, and whether the victim is assaulted by 3 or 300 more is virtually irrelevant. However, the attackers are deriving some pleasure from the attack, and if you add enough attackers into the mix, it is hard to overcome the argument that their pleasure outweighs the victims' pain. To put it another way, if the pain of gang rape until death is a -100, and the pleasure each attacker derives from the attack is 0.5, then, once the 201st attacker is done, the situation becomes a net positive. And, if it is a net positive, according to Utilitarian Ethics, it is morally right. Now, I am reasonable sure that we all would argue that gang rape can never be morally right, but one would be hard pressed to establish why under Utilitarian Ethics. Hence, as a theory, I think it is lacking.

In contrast, Virtue Ethics is the position that things are right or wrong based on what sort of people we are or become based on what we do. In other words, why we do what we do is just as significant as what we do, and both add up to develop our moral character. So, going back to the cavity search, few people who perform them actually want to, and they only do it because they believe the prison system is safer and better without the contraband smuggled in orifices. Further, rape is the violent dehumanization of a person for the sake of selfish pleasure, whereas cavity searches are in the best interest of the prison society (or so it is believed, anyway). Therefore, one action is selfish, and the other is selfless. Should a guard take sadistic pleasure in performing these checks, that person is not exhibiting a virtue, but a vice, and therefore is morally wrong, even though the actions haven't changed. However, the weakness of this position is there are often contrasting virtues in a given situation. Assuming the virtues of honesty and protection of those in mortal danger, it could be difficult to work out the proper moral action/attitude when a murderer asks you where his victim, who just ran by and hid, went. Personally, I think this issue can be resolved if virtue is seen as singular gem with myriad facets, but that is a conversation for another time.

So, all this to say, the subject of ethics is vastly more complicated than is commonly portrayed, and only one major branch of ethical theory is primarily concerned with an action itself. And, to address the OP, much of it will depend on what sort of ethical system is adopted and what field of study is the basis for this. If it is a scientific based utilitarianism, they may see the proliferation of religion as ghastly, as it (in their minds) only creates false hopes and interferes with our progress as a species. If it is a religious utilitarianism, they may see our lack of forced conversion as ghastly, as this may ensure the condemnation of millions (assuming, of course, that they believe that forced conversion is legitimate conversion).

(For anyone who may be interested in more information on these, this [Virtue Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)] and this [Consequentialism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)] provide good introductions on the subjects)

What I think your post is missing is that "morals" is a set of relatively concrete principles that can be taught in a relatively short time to people of all intellects.

So while Mao may have had excellent reasons for killing so many people for the "greater good", there is no applicability to a moral system that individuals can apply in their own lives.

You can describe the mental gymnastics of various people's thought processes with a variety headings, but it always comes down to a judgement call about what the person considers "good", how much power they have to effect others and what they imagine the ultimate good is. Depending on the person, that could be genocide or society with no laws at all.

So to bring it back to backsides, it is nearly impossible to say that there is a clean cut rule about invading another person's body. If you respect individuals, any invasion is morally repugnant, and if you take a more pragmatic approach you quickly end up in a place where the King's needs rule and the actions of those that serve him are 'morally' justified.

Generally, good people gravitate toward a place where individuals are treated with maximum respect up to the point where the individuals themselves have made it impossible. And that involves real judgement, not a rule book.

 

[Joshua Jones]

What I think your post is missing is that "morals" is a set of relatively concrete principles that can be taught in a relatively short time to people of all intellects.

So while Mao may have had excellent reasons for killing so many people for the "greater good", there is no applicability to a moral system that individuals can apply in their own lives.

You can describe the mental gymnastics of various people's thought processes with a variety headings, but it always comes down to a judgement call about what the person considers "good", how much power they have to effect others and what they imagine the ultimate good is. Depending on the person, that could be genocide or society with no laws at all.

So to bring it back to backsides, it is nearly impossible to say that there is a clean cut rule about invading another person's body. If you respect individuals, any invasion is morally repugnant, and if you take a more pragmatic approach you quickly end up in a place where the King's needs rule and the actions of those that serve him are 'morally' justified.

Generally, good people gravitate toward a place where individuals are treated with maximum respect up to the point where the individuals themselves have made it impossible. And that involves real judgement, not a rule book.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but it seems we may be discussing different questions. You seem to be speaking of descriptive ethics (meaning, what do people believe regarding ethics and how is this communicated), and I am more interested in normative ethics (what ought people believe regarding ethics and why).

To put it another way, while I agree that "morals" may be taught in a simple form regarding behavior in a short period of time, and this is typically as far as the inquiry goes, I disagree that this is the summation of what ethics ought to be. But, to serve as an explanation for what defines an action, outcome, or attitude as wrong, it must be internally and externally consistent, as well as preferable over the other viable options. This is testable by the laws of logic, and I believe ought to be tested. In my mind, the reason why someone does something is vastly more descriptive of their moral character than the action itself, but that is just my opinion. There is a reason this question has been argued for millennia...

 

[Onyx]

In my mind, the reason why someone does something is vastly more descriptive of their moral character than the action itself, but that is just my opinion.

What is the value in judging someone's moral character? Either the members of a society have morals that produce good outcomes, or they don't. Only St. Peter needs to evaluate moral character separate from actions.

The largest problem I see is that the worst excesses in history have come from the idea of good applied through the lens of a some sort faith, idea or political philosophy.

 

[Montero]

What is the value in judging someone's moral character? Either the members of a society have morals that produce good outcomes, or they don't. Only St. Peter needs to evaluate moral character separate from actions.

The largest problem I see is that the worst excesses in history have come from the idea of good applied through the lens of a some sort faith, idea or political philosophy.

Are you saying that it is what the morals are that matter not the individuals who are or are not applying them?

 

[RJM Corbet]

What is the value in judging someone's moral character? Either the members of a society have morals that produce good outcomes, or they don't. Only St. Peter needs to evaluate moral character separate from actions.

The largest problem I see is that the worst excesses in history have come from the idea of good applied through the lens of a some sort faith, idea or political philosophy.

What I think your post is missing is that "morals" is a set of relatively concrete principles that can be taught in a relatively short time to people of all intellects.

So while Mao may have had excellent reasons for killing so many people for the "greater good", there is no applicability to a moral system that individuals can apply in their own lives.

You can describe the mental gymnastics of various people's thought processes with a variety headings, but it always comes down to a judgement call about what the person considers "good", how much power they have to effect others and what they imagine the ultimate good is. Depending on the person, that could be genocide or society with no laws at all.

So to bring it back to backsides, it is nearly impossible to say that there is a clean cut rule about invading another person's body. If you respect individuals, any invasion is morally repugnant, and if you take a more pragmatic approach you quickly end up in a place where the King's needs rule and the actions of those that serve him are 'morally' justified.

Generally, good people gravitate toward a place where individuals are treated with maximum respect up to the point where the individuals themselves have made it impossible. And that involves real judgement, not a rule book.

But Mao tse Tung was responsible for the deaths of 70 million people. Pol Pot killed a quarter of the population in around 5 years (don't hold me to the exact figure). Stalin killed tens of millions. Weren't these the worst excesses in modern history? What about Gengis Khan? What about the Romans?

 

[Onyx]

Are you saying that it is what the morals are that matter not the individuals who are or are not applying them?

"Moral" is a word that can be used to mean a number of different things. One is adherence to a code of behavior - and the rigidity of that adherence could be called "moral character". Another is whether someone is "good" or not - which might also be called their "moral character".

I'm not sure what exactly you're asking since you quoted two very different ideas. Moral codes aren't bad - they give people without broad judgement a tool that will often allow them to be good. But moral codes suffer because of their lack of flexibility and ability to be subverted by a larger ethos.

If you're asking about the first part, what "matters" depends on what you're interested in. If you're interested in how people treat the world, then the morals matter. If you're interested in who qualifies for salvation or a Rotary Club award, then you'd want to look into the heart of the individuals to see why they acted.

But Mao tse Tung was responsible for the deaths of 70 million people. Pol Pot killed a quarter of the population in around 5 years (don't hold me to the exact figure). Stalin killed tens of millions. Weren't these the worst excesses in modern history? What about Gengis Khan? What about the Romans?

I thought you weren't talking to me anymore?

Anyway, all of those are examples of the excesses I was talking about, as they each did awful, excessive things due to their adherence to concepts like "Mongol superiority" or "ending class struggle". Incredibly, the brutality of the French Revolution was in the name of liberty.

 

[RJM Corbet]

"Moral" is a word that can be used to mean a number of different things. One is adherence to a code of behavior - and the rigidity of that adherence could be called "moral character". Another is whether someone is "good" or not - which might also be called their "moral character".

I'm not sure what exactly you're asking since you quoted two very different ideas. Moral codes aren't bad - they give people without broad judgement a tool that will often allow them to be good. But moral codes suffer because of their lack of flexibility and ability to be subverted by a larger ethos.

If you're asking about the first part, what "matters" depends on what you're interested in. If you're interested in how people treat the world, then the morals matter. If you're interested in who qualifies for salvation or a Rotary Club award, then you'd want to look into the heart of the individuals to see why they acted.



I thought you weren't talking to me anymore?

Anyway, all of those are examples of the excesses I was talking about, as they each did awful, excessive things due to their adherence to concepts like "Mongol superiority" or "ending class struggle". Incredibly, brutality of the French Revolution was in the name of liberty.

That was a different thread, lol.

Sadly most killers use some spurious moral justification as a smokescreen for simple power or land grab 'excesses'?

EDIT: Perhaps often a true cause, like the French revolution, is hijacked by pure killers?

 

[Onyx]

That was a different thread, lol.

Sadly most killers use some spurious moral justification as a smokescreen for simple power or land grab 'excesses'.

EDIT: Often a true cause, like the French revolution, is hijacked by pure killers.

The enormous crowds that gathered at the guillotine to cheer were not "pure killers", unless you have particularly low opinion of the French.

 

[RJM Corbet]

Robespierre

 

[Onyx]

Robespierre

What proof can you provide that Robespierre was motivated primarily by bloodlust? Was he thought to be a violent, war-like or otherwise brutal "pure killer" before the Revolution?

If not, then that argument doesn't really go anywhere.

 

[RJM Corbet]

This may be going off track, but someone may start out well and quickly become corrupted by power. But often I think such people are concealing their true nature, on their climb up the ladder to power, and then they rule by fear alone.

I have a particular issue about Mao tse Tung, because he was a master of doublespeak propaganda, manipulation of facts etc. They quickly impose a ban on free expression, etc. The true story of Mao tse Tung is truly monstrous.

Gotta catch bus to work now, bro ...