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 desireâ€. 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 belongsâ€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.
Morality: Open Closed
Morality: Open Closed
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?
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?
Morality: Open Closed
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 belongsâ€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 misfortuneâ€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 â€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.â€
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 belongsâ€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 misfortuneâ€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 â€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.â€
Morality: Open Closed
coberst wrote: 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.
coberst wrote: Many individuals think of the individual as constituted by the community to which s/he belongsâ€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.
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.
coberst wrote: Many individuals think of the individual as constituted by the community to which s/he belongsâ€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.
Morality: Open Closed
Good idea snooze!
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
Morality: Open Closed
You're always welcome to join us in the Pub anytime.
Morality: Open Closed
Alan
The best example of a moral theory based on universal principles are Kant’s Categorical Imperative and Rawls’ “A Theory of Justiceâ€.
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.
The best example of a moral theory based on universal principles are Kant’s Categorical Imperative and Rawls’ “A Theory of Justiceâ€.
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.
Morality: Open Closed
coberst wrote: Alan
The best example of a moral theory based on universal principles are Kant’s Categorical Imperative and Rawls’ “A Theory of Justiceâ€.
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).
The best example of a moral theory based on universal principles are Kant’s Categorical Imperative and Rawls’ “A Theory of Justiceâ€.
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).
Morality: Open Closed
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.
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.
Morality: Open Closed
coberst wrote: 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.
Questions about the creation of rational norms are linked, ultimately, to theorising about knowledge - can it be acquired by pure reason, or is it possible only through experience.
Utilitarianism exists in several forms, but I suspect you have the Greatest Happiness Principle in mind. On the face of it, this is an ethical theory which can be, or has been produced by purely rational deliberations; but it may be objected that it is really based on empirical generalisations from observed results of human conduct.
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.
Questions about the creation of rational norms are linked, ultimately, to theorising about knowledge - can it be acquired by pure reason, or is it possible only through experience.
Utilitarianism exists in several forms, but I suspect you have the Greatest Happiness Principle in mind. On the face of it, this is an ethical theory which can be, or has been produced by purely rational deliberations; but it may be objected that it is really based on empirical generalisations from observed results of human conduct.
Morality: Open Closed
Alan
I have been studying “Philosophy in the Flesh†by Lakoff and Johnson. This is a copy of a post I made recently. I give this here because you mentioned about knowledge and can it be acquired by pure reason. I am beginning to find the answers in this metaphor theory to be better than any others I have found.
Metaphor Theory: New Paradigm for Cognitive Science?
I scan many books in a year’s time. I study bits and pieces of scores of books over that time period. At most I will study one book from beginning to end during a twelve-month period. (By the way, I am retired and have time for such things.) There is one book now that I am studying from beginning to end. That is “Philosophy in the Flesh†by Lakoff and Johnson. Lakoff is a linguist and Johnson the head of the philosophy department at the University of Oregon.
The book is an explanation of metaphor theory that I predict will become the first paradigm of cognitive science some day. Most books have less than ten- percent new material. This book I would guess has more than eighty- percent new stuff. What this means for the reader is that there are many new concepts to understand. In my opinion this book is revolutionary and a must read for anyone interested in the human condition. You can probably find it in the library of your local community library. Go there, get a card, borrow the book, and if you don’t give up too soon you will agree with me. (I think!).
I shall try to explain very briefly the heart of metaphor theory. I cannot give this in a scientific manner because this forum would not allow it and I am not capable of doing so anyway. I shall try to use a library analogy to explain metaphor theory.
Let me take some liberties and ask you to assume that the mind to be a library with shelves that are mostly, but not completely, empty at birth.
An infant is born and is held for the first time. A book goes on the shelf for sensorimotor experiences and is labeled ‘warmth’. A little later the infant is held by its mother and is fed. Several books go on the shelf next to warmthâ€â€˜hunger-satisfied’, ‘affection’, ‘warmth’, and others.
Now move forward a brief time and something happens to these books. Affection is a different kind of concept than warmth and hunger-satisfied, which are sensorimotor concepts. Affection is an abstract concept. In the beginning these different kinds of experiences are conflated but later in time the abstract subjective concept separates itself from the sense and motor concepts. A new shelf begins that contains these abstract concepts.
Because of the conflation when affection goes to the new shelf it takes with it much of the contents of the other books. Affection becomes an abstract concept that carries much of the structure contained in warmth. We see this association when it seems perfectly correct to use the metaphor love is a warm cuddley feeling.
What I am trying to say here is that primary experiences, and we have many so qualified, become primary metaphors. A primary experience-become-primary-metaphor is carried forward in futhure experiences to become part of the structure of later experiences. “Early conflations in everyday experience should lead to the automatic formation of hundreds of primary metaphors that pair subjective experience and judgement with sensorimotor experiences. Each primary metaphor…is simple, an atomic component of the molecular structure of complex metaphors.â€
After a period of time we would have a whole section of the library that might be called ‘primary experiences-become-primary-metaphors’. These books would be destined to become part of the contents of all or many later experiences or abstract concepts. As we go through life the structures of these primary metaphors become integrated within all books in the library. Everything in the library is grounded in these primary metaphors.
Cognitive science, which seems to consist primarily of linguists, philosophers and neural scientists, has in the last three decades compiled much empirical evidence to support this theory. One part of this evidence is contained in the fact that there are many commonly used metaphors used in all languages that are the same. This indicates that we have innately connected some things with some other things. An expample of such metaphors are:
Affection is Warmth
Important is Big
Happy is Up
Intimacy is Closeness
Bad is Stinky
Difficulties are Burdens
More is Up
Categories are Containers
Help is Support
Change is Motion
Purposes are Destinations
Knowing is Seeing
Understanding is Grasping
Seeing is Touching
This theory takes the dichotomy out of mind and body and places mind radically (without compromise) in the body. All of the mystical ‘a priors’ of Western philosophy are trashed. I may overspeak in some places here due to ignorance. I reserve the right to make some statements inoperative later.
I have been studying “Philosophy in the Flesh†by Lakoff and Johnson. This is a copy of a post I made recently. I give this here because you mentioned about knowledge and can it be acquired by pure reason. I am beginning to find the answers in this metaphor theory to be better than any others I have found.
Metaphor Theory: New Paradigm for Cognitive Science?
I scan many books in a year’s time. I study bits and pieces of scores of books over that time period. At most I will study one book from beginning to end during a twelve-month period. (By the way, I am retired and have time for such things.) There is one book now that I am studying from beginning to end. That is “Philosophy in the Flesh†by Lakoff and Johnson. Lakoff is a linguist and Johnson the head of the philosophy department at the University of Oregon.
The book is an explanation of metaphor theory that I predict will become the first paradigm of cognitive science some day. Most books have less than ten- percent new material. This book I would guess has more than eighty- percent new stuff. What this means for the reader is that there are many new concepts to understand. In my opinion this book is revolutionary and a must read for anyone interested in the human condition. You can probably find it in the library of your local community library. Go there, get a card, borrow the book, and if you don’t give up too soon you will agree with me. (I think!).
I shall try to explain very briefly the heart of metaphor theory. I cannot give this in a scientific manner because this forum would not allow it and I am not capable of doing so anyway. I shall try to use a library analogy to explain metaphor theory.
Let me take some liberties and ask you to assume that the mind to be a library with shelves that are mostly, but not completely, empty at birth.
An infant is born and is held for the first time. A book goes on the shelf for sensorimotor experiences and is labeled ‘warmth’. A little later the infant is held by its mother and is fed. Several books go on the shelf next to warmthâ€â€˜hunger-satisfied’, ‘affection’, ‘warmth’, and others.
Now move forward a brief time and something happens to these books. Affection is a different kind of concept than warmth and hunger-satisfied, which are sensorimotor concepts. Affection is an abstract concept. In the beginning these different kinds of experiences are conflated but later in time the abstract subjective concept separates itself from the sense and motor concepts. A new shelf begins that contains these abstract concepts.
Because of the conflation when affection goes to the new shelf it takes with it much of the contents of the other books. Affection becomes an abstract concept that carries much of the structure contained in warmth. We see this association when it seems perfectly correct to use the metaphor love is a warm cuddley feeling.
What I am trying to say here is that primary experiences, and we have many so qualified, become primary metaphors. A primary experience-become-primary-metaphor is carried forward in futhure experiences to become part of the structure of later experiences. “Early conflations in everyday experience should lead to the automatic formation of hundreds of primary metaphors that pair subjective experience and judgement with sensorimotor experiences. Each primary metaphor…is simple, an atomic component of the molecular structure of complex metaphors.â€
After a period of time we would have a whole section of the library that might be called ‘primary experiences-become-primary-metaphors’. These books would be destined to become part of the contents of all or many later experiences or abstract concepts. As we go through life the structures of these primary metaphors become integrated within all books in the library. Everything in the library is grounded in these primary metaphors.
Cognitive science, which seems to consist primarily of linguists, philosophers and neural scientists, has in the last three decades compiled much empirical evidence to support this theory. One part of this evidence is contained in the fact that there are many commonly used metaphors used in all languages that are the same. This indicates that we have innately connected some things with some other things. An expample of such metaphors are:
Affection is Warmth
Important is Big
Happy is Up
Intimacy is Closeness
Bad is Stinky
Difficulties are Burdens
More is Up
Categories are Containers
Help is Support
Change is Motion
Purposes are Destinations
Knowing is Seeing
Understanding is Grasping
Seeing is Touching
This theory takes the dichotomy out of mind and body and places mind radically (without compromise) in the body. All of the mystical ‘a priors’ of Western philosophy are trashed. I may overspeak in some places here due to ignorance. I reserve the right to make some statements inoperative later.
Morality: Open Closed
coberst wrote: Alan
I have been studying “Philosophy in the Flesh†by Lakoff and Johnson. This is a copy of a post I made recently. I give this here because you mentioned about knowledge and can it be acquired by pure reason. I am beginning to find the answers in this metaphor theory to be better than any others I have found.
I can't comment in detail about a book I haven't read, but here's some very brief reactions to what you have to say.
Nothing whatsoever is gained by calling primary experiences "metaphors". A metaphor is a literary device (a use of figurative language) which has a philosophical interest when the boundary between literal and metaphorical meaning is being examined - it can then become a problem in semantics.
A priori knowledge is not "mystical", it is merely a label for knowledge that is achieved by the use of reason alone and without reference to experience.
From your description of the "metaphor theory", I do not see how it throws any light on mind/body dualism.
Judging by our exchanges so far coberst, I don't think we are on the same "wavelength". You seem to be heading off in several directions at the same time. If you want to discuss a particular philosophical problem - say Knowledge, Mind/Body, the Self, Free Will. or whatever, please specify. If we chase hares all over the place, we shall get nowhere.
I have been studying “Philosophy in the Flesh†by Lakoff and Johnson. This is a copy of a post I made recently. I give this here because you mentioned about knowledge and can it be acquired by pure reason. I am beginning to find the answers in this metaphor theory to be better than any others I have found.
I can't comment in detail about a book I haven't read, but here's some very brief reactions to what you have to say.
Nothing whatsoever is gained by calling primary experiences "metaphors". A metaphor is a literary device (a use of figurative language) which has a philosophical interest when the boundary between literal and metaphorical meaning is being examined - it can then become a problem in semantics.
A priori knowledge is not "mystical", it is merely a label for knowledge that is achieved by the use of reason alone and without reference to experience.
From your description of the "metaphor theory", I do not see how it throws any light on mind/body dualism.
Judging by our exchanges so far coberst, I don't think we are on the same "wavelength". You seem to be heading off in several directions at the same time. If you want to discuss a particular philosophical problem - say Knowledge, Mind/Body, the Self, Free Will. or whatever, please specify. If we chase hares all over the place, we shall get nowhere.
Morality: Open Closed
Alan
Perhaps you are correct. I am more interested in cognitive science which does not easily fit within the normal Western philosophical tradition. I am off on another rabbit redux. Good luck.
Perhaps you are correct. I am more interested in cognitive science which does not easily fit within the normal Western philosophical tradition. I am off on another rabbit redux. Good luck.