Morality: Open & Closed

[coberst]

Captain Dave will under no circumstance torture a prisoner (open morality). Captain Jim will torture a prisoner when he considers such action will save the lives of his platoon (closed morality).

“The two main concepts of ethics are those of the right and the good; the concept of a morally worthy person is, I believe, derived from them.” This quote and any others are from “A Theory of Justice” by John Rawls.

In teleological (explaining phenomena by final causes) theories of ethics the good is defined independently from the right.

The attitude of the individual is to seek the satisfaction of desire, more appropriately it is “the satisfaction of rational desire”. Many people find that society should be just an extension of this attitude. The good, for society, is the satisfaction of rational desire. The right is that which maximizes the good.

Others in society reject this utilitarian view and find that the right comes before the good and embodies a boundary for the good. The right becomes a principle that has priority over the good. In the United States the right is placed in the Constitution and each individual determines the good.

Captain Dave rejects the utilitarian view of morality (open morality). Captain Jim embraces the utilitarian view of morality (closed morality).

Morality/ethics is a matter pertaining only to the relationship between subjects and thus there is nothing objective about it. All such matters are subjective and thus relative. Religion interjects God into the matter and thus makes it a matter of absolutes for believers.

Many individuals think of the individual as constituted by the community to which s/he belongs—their value is dependent to a large extent upon the community. It is this interdependence upon the community that makes ideology so very potent. For the individual who embraces closed morality the ideological association is more important than to the person with an open morality.

[Alan Ryan]

You've made a general statement here about morality, but you have not given any clues about your point of view in any particular respect.

What's the core point or points (if any) that you wish to discuss? Or is your statement just intended to be information for the casual browser with a fleeting interest in ethics?

[coberst]

Alan

I have attached a post I made earlier that fits with this post.

A point I wish to make is just how important ideology is for all of us. For those individuals whose morality is determined not from basic rational principles their particular ideology determines for them right and wrong. Most all of us give little thought to what ideology is about and how we are determined by that view.

Many individuals think of the individual as constituted by the community to which s/he belongs—their value is dependent to a large extent upon the community. It is this interdependence upon the community that makes ideology so very potent. For the individual who embraces closed morality the ideological association is more important than to the person with an open morality



Good Samaritan


I suspect that almost all of us would behave uniformly when encountering face-to-face with another person’s misfortune—we would all feel instant sympathy. We are born with ‘sympathetic vibrations’--we automatically tear-up in all the same situations. However there seems to be two broad categories of moral behavior in many social-political situations.

We commonly perceive the ‘bleeding heart liberal’ and the ‘hard hearted conservative’. The ‘idealistic but foolish liberal’ and the ‘practical but reasonable conservative’. The individual who was a liberal when young and idealistic becomes the conservative, as s/he grows older and more realistic. The ‘nurturing mother’ attitude versus the ‘strict father’ attitude.

In “A Theory of Justice” John Rawls seeks the principles of ‘justice as fairness’. Rawls assumes that we inherently agree on what constitutes moral behavior. He claims that if we all considered what to be the principles of justice while under a ‘veil of ignorance’ we would all agree. The ‘veil of ignorance’ constituted willful ignorance of our own specific social setting while considering what is fair. Willful ignorance means we ‘forget’ our status of wealth or ‘born-with gifts’ or social standing.

Liberals take the stance that to agree on the fact means to agree on the morality of the situation. Any deviation is indefensible and reflects only selfish rationalization. Liberals find it almost impossible to respect the moral position of conservatives and conservatives find it impossible to judge that liberals are the intellectual equals of conservatives.

The apparent reason for this disjunction is the fact that liberals and conservatives seem to have “their own kind of morality” according to the analysis in ”The Morality of Politics” by W. H. Walsh.

“What we need to observe is that conservatives and liberals are working within different traditions of morality. The morality of the conservative is closed morality; it is the morality of a particular community. The morality of the liberal is an open morality; it is a morality which has nothing to do with any particular human groups, but applies to all men whatever their local affiliations.”

Yo Co... don't you yearn for familiarity? Wouldn't you like to hear the common man's thought? How about joining the rest of humanity in the other threads?

[Alan Ryan]

Originally Posted by coberst

Alan

I have attached a post I made earlier that fits with this post.

A point I wish to make is just how important ideology is for all of us. For those individuals whose morality is determined not from basic rational principles their particular ideology determines for them right and wrong. Most all of us give little thought to what ideology is about and how we are determined by that view.

It is at the very least arguable that morality is ever determined by "basic rational principles". There are theories of moral sentiments that are based on other assumptions.

Originally Posted by coberst

Many individuals think of the individual as constituted by the community to which s/he belongs—their value is dependent to a large extent upon the community. It is this interdependence upon the community that makes ideology so very potent. For the individual who embraces closed morality the ideological association is more important than to the person with an open morality

An ideology can be described as a conceptual scheme that appears to give an account of man and society, and from which a programme of political action can be derived. How ideology is instrumental in the formation of moral imperatives, is something you need to explain.

[coberst]

Good idea snooze!

[chonsigirl]

You're always welcome to join us in the Pub anytime.

[coberst]

Alan

The best example of a moral theory based on universal principles are Kant’s Categorical Imperative and Rawls’ “A Theory of Justice”.

If one does not base their moral decisions upon universally reasoned principle then one bases it upon utilitarian or perhaps ideological base. I consider religion to be an ideology along with capitalism, consumerism, liberalism, conservatism, racism, etc.

[Alan Ryan]

Originally Posted by coberst

Alan

The best example of a moral theory based on universal principles are Kant’s Categorical Imperative and Rawls’ “A Theory of Justice”.

If one does not base their moral decisions upon universally reasoned principle then one bases it upon utilitarian or perhaps ideological base. I consider religion to be an ideology along with capitalism, consumerism, liberalism, conservatism, racism, etc.

Perhaps we should be cautious before attacking the philosophical authority of Kant, but the categorical imperative (or duty to act according to an objective principle of reason) is not impervious to sceptical enquiry.

Kant claims that reason (or "pure reason" if you like) is sufficient in itself to establish a basis for the categorical imperative. This of course involves dumping any reference to empirical conditions and takes us into the realm of the so-called a priori . A couple of questions arise here; the first is the question of whether a priori knowledge, or knowledge by rational insight, is possible. A second question arises from moral motivation: even if pure reasoning could lead us to their discovery, are we motivated by rational principles or are we motivated by an emotional force?

John Rawls did use a Kantian framework for his "Theory of Justice", but until the sort of questions I've just asked are answered, it might be a bit premature to launch an exchange of ideas about what Rawls meant.

With the exception perhaps of liberalism, your list of "isms", do not, in my view, amount to separate ideologies. (It's curious that you don't mention communism).

[coberst]

Alan

I suspect that all of our efforts at trying to create rational norms are doomed to failure. Utitiltarianism is probably the most used justification we can find to excuse our behavior. Communism and all other isms are sorry excuses for morality bases. As long as we stick to instrumental matters we do very well but beyond that reason has not proven to be a very good aid. Might generally makes right on the world stage.