Tuesday, September 30, 2014
No News is Good News
Other than pissing people off on facebook, I'm not up to anything. Just layin' around here in Round 7 feeling tired but not terrible.
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
Musings
Loyalty and ethics are two different things, but I think many of us view them as interchangeable or indistinguishable. It's my view that we are a "loyalty" culture. But this is particularly dangerous. Ethics (should) refer to an external standard against which right & wrong are judged to determine the proper course of action or attitude - situational ethics being that standard applied to real-world instances. Ethics isn't easy - bioethics alone is very challenging, regardless of the simplicity of the ethical system applied.
Loyalty is personal or institutional - much easier to abide by. And most profitable for the institution or person who inspires loyalty. Because in a ethical dilemma, loyalty, while has no specific bearing on the objective standards of ethics, demands action in compliance to the interests of the person or individual affected. Thus it is in the (perceived) interest of the institution or person to inculcate loyalty as shield against ethical behavior that runs counter to those interests.
If you take a moment and look at your life, I think you'll find yourself in a web of loyalty - to friends, institutions, culture, political party, etc. Put yourself in this situation. You are part of a group of friends who are engaging in a behavior that you find wrong. You confront your friends and advise them to stop, but they refuse to do so:
Now, the fact that most people's ultimate loyalty is to themselves is to place them in the hierarchy of loyalty. The fact that there can be conflicting loyalties is further differentiation from ethics. There cannot be conflicting ethics (unless you are a relativist, in which you misuse the word ethics for what should either be called loyalty or conditioning).
-------- SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT TOPIC
The idea of "a moral compass" is an interesting one. I used to think that this was the most inept metaphor ever invented - because the context in which I heard it was from someone implying moral relativism. Dude. Go look at how a compass works. It is a slave to an external field.
If everyone had "their own moral compass" - that would just mean that everyone was aligned to the same external standards of right and wrong. Quite the opposite of what this particular gentleman was alleging.
But there is another sense, in which the idea of having a moral compass just means that you don't have to rely on "someone else with a compass" to tell you what is right and wrong. And this is just saying that you have a conscience - in the Catholic understanding of a conscience.
So let's do that. Conscience - con (with) science (knowledge). In the Catholic sense, this implies "God's voice in us" - the idea that we have a built in sense of right & wrong, but that conscience can be formed or deadened - it is not an innate and unchanging faculty. In a more general usage, people think of conscience as "what I feel is right or wrong." The idea of the primacy of conscience is that the external standards of right and wrong are secondary to what we feel is right or wrong; that we feel good or bad about our actions based on whether not those action are good and bad. So if we feel good about something, then there's nothing wrong with it.
But of course, most thinking people recognize the immediate problems with primacy of conscience - in that you might feel bad about something the first time you do it, but after a while, that "naughty naughty" voice just goes away. This dovetails with the concept of "habitual sin" - the gravity of the sin being greatest initially, but as one becomes inured to the behavior, the gravity of subsequent acts is lessened - because each act is less consciously chosen. Another problem is that we encounter lack of a conscience in the insane.
So we see that the conscience can be formed or deadened, and that a "personal conscience" which guides one's actions without reference to external standards of right & wrong is meaningless. Which gets us back to the issue of those external standards.
Now whether you believe in natural law as the basis of ethics, in either the classical liberal sense or the scholastic (Catholic) sense, or if you believe in sola scriptura for your ethics (bon chance, amigo!), or if you believe in cultural relativism, utilitarianism, or some other ethical system, you are admitting to an external standard of right & wrong.
A properly formed conscience is one in which that interior voice is speaking "with knowledge" of right and wrong.
So back to the compass. If you rely on your own moral compass, and it disagrees with some external standard of right & wrong, what do you do? If you assert that you always follow your moral compass, regardless of what that external standard says, then you're saying that the external standard is wrong. For everybody. Because, again, a compass only aligns to an external field. To have two people with moral compasses that are each valid but different is a violation of the principle of noncontradiction. So, what you're saying if you rely on your own moral compass, to the exclusion of a specific external standard, is to say that you disagree with that external standard.
Unlike you and me, philosophers and theologians spend a lot of time thinking about ethics. Modern philosophers have thought themselves into a corner of meaninglessness, but the pronouncements of philosophers across the ages are of tremendous value in determining ethics. Has anything really changed in terms of the true, the good, and the beautiful since Aristotle? Has Immanuel Kant been obsoleted by a new discovery? Certainly there is no "scientific consensus" on ethics to the extent that there is in mathematics (at least to my level of mathematical understanding), but that doesn't mean that a universal standard of ethics is any less achievable.
Further, although the basis of the theologians' study is in revelation, which to our modern sensibilities means "arbitrary," and is thus the fundamental complaint of our compass wielding gentleman, to equate theology with revelation is to misunderstand theology. Christian theology (and Judaic, based on my brief exposure) seeks to reconcile revelation with publicly accessible knowledge to form a single, consistent, rational and faithful system that contains ethics.
Those with no exposure to theological ethics either think of Christian ethics as "the 10 commandments" or "the golden rule." Their perception is that when it gets down to an ethical dilemma, the theologian says "Well.... God says do this. End of argument."
But this is hardly the case. Theologians pursue integrated and rational ethics with at least as much rigor as what is left of the philosophical community.
Which means, for our compass-wielder, that when he says his compass is pointing in a different direction than his navigator (the "expert" in ethics, whether philosophical or theological), then he is claiming the superiority of his own ethical system to that defined by his navigator.
People do this all the time, and experts aren't infallible (except when speaking ex cathedra on dogmatic issues of faith or morals). But this is a lot like a visit to the doctors' office, when the doctor tells you that you have bone cancer and you keep insisting it's a broken arm. The benefit of the doubt probably should go TO THE PERSON WHO KNOWS WHAT THE FUCK THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT.
So how we "feel" about an ethical dilemma, while a generally trustworthy guide with a properly formed conscience, should not trump additional concerns from the external reference sources of authority. You've got your own moral compass? Fine. And I've got mine. But the magnetic pole isn't changing for either of us. (1)
-------
(1) actually the magnetic pole of the earth does change and apparently does completely flip around once very few hundred thousand years. We're overdue for the magnetic pole to suddenly flop from north to south. But it's not going to change because some dickhead in Canada thinks that Santa Clause should live in Antarctica.
--- COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TOPIC
I have many intelligent liberal friends. But a few things I don't understand about them.
Loyalty is personal or institutional - much easier to abide by. And most profitable for the institution or person who inspires loyalty. Because in a ethical dilemma, loyalty, while has no specific bearing on the objective standards of ethics, demands action in compliance to the interests of the person or individual affected. Thus it is in the (perceived) interest of the institution or person to inculcate loyalty as shield against ethical behavior that runs counter to those interests.
If you take a moment and look at your life, I think you'll find yourself in a web of loyalty - to friends, institutions, culture, political party, etc. Put yourself in this situation. You are part of a group of friends who are engaging in a behavior that you find wrong. You confront your friends and advise them to stop, but they refuse to do so:
- Extract yourself from the situation but let your friends continue
- Continue along with your friends in doing wrong (primacy of loyalty)
- Intervene and put a stop to your friends' wrongdoing (primacy of ethics)
Now, the fact that most people's ultimate loyalty is to themselves is to place them in the hierarchy of loyalty. The fact that there can be conflicting loyalties is further differentiation from ethics. There cannot be conflicting ethics (unless you are a relativist, in which you misuse the word ethics for what should either be called loyalty or conditioning).
-------- SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT TOPIC
The idea of "a moral compass" is an interesting one. I used to think that this was the most inept metaphor ever invented - because the context in which I heard it was from someone implying moral relativism. Dude. Go look at how a compass works. It is a slave to an external field.
If everyone had "their own moral compass" - that would just mean that everyone was aligned to the same external standards of right and wrong. Quite the opposite of what this particular gentleman was alleging.
But there is another sense, in which the idea of having a moral compass just means that you don't have to rely on "someone else with a compass" to tell you what is right and wrong. And this is just saying that you have a conscience - in the Catholic understanding of a conscience.
So let's do that. Conscience - con (with) science (knowledge). In the Catholic sense, this implies "God's voice in us" - the idea that we have a built in sense of right & wrong, but that conscience can be formed or deadened - it is not an innate and unchanging faculty. In a more general usage, people think of conscience as "what I feel is right or wrong." The idea of the primacy of conscience is that the external standards of right and wrong are secondary to what we feel is right or wrong; that we feel good or bad about our actions based on whether not those action are good and bad. So if we feel good about something, then there's nothing wrong with it.
But of course, most thinking people recognize the immediate problems with primacy of conscience - in that you might feel bad about something the first time you do it, but after a while, that "naughty naughty" voice just goes away. This dovetails with the concept of "habitual sin" - the gravity of the sin being greatest initially, but as one becomes inured to the behavior, the gravity of subsequent acts is lessened - because each act is less consciously chosen. Another problem is that we encounter lack of a conscience in the insane.
So we see that the conscience can be formed or deadened, and that a "personal conscience" which guides one's actions without reference to external standards of right & wrong is meaningless. Which gets us back to the issue of those external standards.
Now whether you believe in natural law as the basis of ethics, in either the classical liberal sense or the scholastic (Catholic) sense, or if you believe in sola scriptura for your ethics (bon chance, amigo!), or if you believe in cultural relativism, utilitarianism, or some other ethical system, you are admitting to an external standard of right & wrong.
A properly formed conscience is one in which that interior voice is speaking "with knowledge" of right and wrong.
So back to the compass. If you rely on your own moral compass, and it disagrees with some external standard of right & wrong, what do you do? If you assert that you always follow your moral compass, regardless of what that external standard says, then you're saying that the external standard is wrong. For everybody. Because, again, a compass only aligns to an external field. To have two people with moral compasses that are each valid but different is a violation of the principle of noncontradiction. So, what you're saying if you rely on your own moral compass, to the exclusion of a specific external standard, is to say that you disagree with that external standard.
- And that's fine. The members of ISIS have their own moral compasses that are aligned with Islamic Jihad, which contains an ethical standard that places obedience to Allah, as defined through his final prophet Mohammed as the ultimate and final arbiter of right and wrong. Mohammed said "he who defames the prophet must die." Quod erat demonstrandum.
- Or - since current atrocities seem to matter less than the atrocities committed by Christians a few hundred years ago:
- The moral compasses of the Spanish Inquisitors said that the soul was immortal and the body corruptible, and that it was better to save the soul at the cost of the body - so if torture could effect the salvation of the soul, it was preferable to the comfy chair and fluffy pillows that left the body content and the soul damned.
 |
| The true, the good, & the beautiful. Or in other words "Not Miley Cyrus" |
Further, although the basis of the theologians' study is in revelation, which to our modern sensibilities means "arbitrary," and is thus the fundamental complaint of our compass wielding gentleman, to equate theology with revelation is to misunderstand theology. Christian theology (and Judaic, based on my brief exposure) seeks to reconcile revelation with publicly accessible knowledge to form a single, consistent, rational and faithful system that contains ethics.
Those with no exposure to theological ethics either think of Christian ethics as "the 10 commandments" or "the golden rule." Their perception is that when it gets down to an ethical dilemma, the theologian says "Well.... God says do this. End of argument."
But this is hardly the case. Theologians pursue integrated and rational ethics with at least as much rigor as what is left of the philosophical community.
Which means, for our compass-wielder, that when he says his compass is pointing in a different direction than his navigator (the "expert" in ethics, whether philosophical or theological), then he is claiming the superiority of his own ethical system to that defined by his navigator.
People do this all the time, and experts aren't infallible (except when speaking ex cathedra on dogmatic issues of faith or morals). But this is a lot like a visit to the doctors' office, when the doctor tells you that you have bone cancer and you keep insisting it's a broken arm. The benefit of the doubt probably should go TO THE PERSON WHO KNOWS WHAT THE FUCK THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT.
So how we "feel" about an ethical dilemma, while a generally trustworthy guide with a properly formed conscience, should not trump additional concerns from the external reference sources of authority. You've got your own moral compass? Fine. And I've got mine. But the magnetic pole isn't changing for either of us. (1)
-------
(1) actually the magnetic pole of the earth does change and apparently does completely flip around once very few hundred thousand years. We're overdue for the magnetic pole to suddenly flop from north to south. But it's not going to change because some dickhead in Canada thinks that Santa Clause should live in Antarctica.
--- COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TOPIC
I have many intelligent liberal friends. But a few things I don't understand about them.
 |
| Your pull-string is showing - Oh, you've just been reading HuffPo. Sorry for the mixup, Sandra Fluke |
- How does their hive mind work? Why are they able to express the same opinions with the same language instantaneously. I used to think that they communicated by NPR & Jon Stewart, but now I think it's pheromones.
- Why are my liberal friends suddenly turning into pull-string dolls, where any given stimuli results only in the mantra of "Citizens United! Koch Brothers! Fox News!". These are (mostly) people with active minds. How did they become little marching robots whose primary issues seem to be keeping other people (or non-union organizations) out of the political process and silencing the press? When did they turn from liberals into fascists?
- Why are the people who are fundamentally incapable of DOING science (mostly), such tremendous fans of what they think science is? This is a real change. Back in the 80's, liberals hated science - they thought of it as big chemical companies and evil corporations. Now they champion science so much that they think that any opinion that disagrees with theirs is "unscientific." How did they go from "bleeding hearts & artists" to fawning sycophants of anyone with a lab coat?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)