Man of sciences vs. science of man

[coberst]

Man of sciences vs. science of man

 

I have a constantly changing attitude toward morality. My views are changing because I am constantly studying subject matter that is related to the problem of morality. In fact as I study these matters I find that the most important concerns of sapiens is morality based.

 

I have a cartoon figure that my son has crated for me that speaks to my general attitude toward morality. The figure has an Arnold-like upper torso set on two spindle weak veracious veined legs. The upper torso is our ‘man of science’ and the lower body represents our ‘science of man’, i.e. morality. We are rapidly running out the clock on human survival unless we quickly develop a moral code that will allow us to live together.

 

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 often automatically tear-up in all the same situations. However there seems to be two moral concepts that determine many social-political situations.

 

“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.

 

It appears that both philosophy and common sense distinguish between the concepts ‘right’ and ‘good’. The interrelationship of these two concepts in many minds will determine what is considered to be ethical/moral behavior. Most citizens in a just society consider that rights “are taken for granted and the rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interests.” The Constitution of the United States defines the rights of all citizens, which are considered to be sacrosanct (sacred or holy).

 

Many consider that the “most rational conception of justice is utilitarian…a society is properly arranged when its institutions maximize the net balance of satisfaction…It is natural to think that rationality is maximizing something and that in morals it must be maximizing the good.”

 

Some advocates of utilitarianism believe that rights have a secondary validity from the fact that “under the conditions of civilized society there is a great social utility in following them [rights] for the most part and in permitting violations only under exceptional circumstances.” The good, for society, is the satisfaction of rational desire. The right is that which maximizes the good; some advocates of utilitarianism account for rights as being a socially useful consideration.

 

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

 

Some utilitarians consider the rights enunciated in the constitution are a useful means to fortify the good. Captain Jim, while recognizing the rights in the Constitution, considers these rights are valid and useful but only because they promote the good. The rights defined in the Constitution can be violated but only in the name of the common good.

 

Captain Dave may very well be an advocate of utilitarianism but he considers that right is different in kind from good and right cannot be forfeit to good under any condition.

 

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.”

 

I was raised as a Catholic; I was taught by the nuns the Catholic doctrine regarding sin, punishment, and consciousness. Venial sins were like misdemeanors and mortal sins were like felonies. However, this is not a completely accurate analogy because if a person dies with venial sin on the soul s/he would be punished by having to spend time in purgatory before going to heaven but if a person died with mortal sin on the soul s/he went directly to hell for eternity.

 

Confession was the standard means for ‘erasing sin from the soul’. A confession was considered to be a ‘good confession’ only if the sinner confessed the sins to a priest and was truly sorry for having committed sin. A very important element of a good confession was an examination of consciousness, which meant the person must become fully conscious of having committed the sin.

 

Ignorance of the sin was no excuse just as ignorance of the law is no excuse. Herein lays the rub. Knowledge and consciousness of sin were necessary conditions for the erasure of sin from the soul in confession.

[jedaisoul]

We are rapidly running out the clock on human survival unless we quickly develop a moral code that will allow us to live together.

On what is this claim based? There have always been harbingers-of-doom, and they have generally been wrong. What makes this claim any better than the majority of "the end is nigh" predictions?

 

“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.

 

It appears that both philosophy and common sense distinguish between the concepts ‘right’ and ‘good’. The interrelationship of these two concepts in many minds will determine what is considered to be ethical/moral behavior.

Surely, obligation is as important as right. We have certain rights, but they come with an obligation to ensure that the rights of others are equally respected. Focusing on rights without obligations is a selfish and unbalanced attitude.

 

As for 'good', that is a very slippery and ill defined concept. Who is to say whether something is good or bad? Who is it good for? Is there ever a situation where something is wholly good? Arguably, the most evil of men have acted in the sure and certain knowledge that they were acting for the good of their people/nation. I suggest that good is a word that means whatever you want it to, and is often used to justify whatever happens to be in your own interest.

[coberst]

Jedaisoul

 

I make my claims based upon observation, reading, and judgment. All claims regarding values must come from our ability to assimulate knowledge and make judgments. That is why it is so very important for everyone to learn CT (Critical Thiking).

 

Most all of my formal education, I suspect your own also, has been didactic in nature. Didactic education is a method of “teaching by telling” and rote memorization.

 

My engineering education and most all college level education is didactic. Most college education is designed to train an individual to perform a very specific task. The engineer, accountant, doctor, etc is told what is the logic of performance for a particular profession. After years of this indoctrination the graduate is prepared to solve the problems encountered in the particular chosen field.

 

Such training is an efficient method for utilizing the scientific method to solve problems in a prescribed frame of reference. It is the type of education designed for a productive and efficient technology. Our technological accomplishments are proof of this. It is not, however, the type of education that prepares the individual for most of the problems encountered by society or self.

 

Most important issues are not simply matters of fact, nor are they essentially matters of faith, taste, or preferences. They are matters that call for reasoned reflection and sound judgments. They are problems that can be considered from differing perspectives, from different frames of reference. Often a values issue requires at least two perspectives: is it good morality and is it good economics.

 

How does one structure thinking to produce reasoned reflection and sound judgment in those matters that make up most of life’s multifaceted concerns?

 

Governor Elect Arnold S. must develop a budget for the state of California very quickly. Let us imagine the sessions that he holds with his advisors leading up to the finished budget.

 

Arnold holds his first meeting with six advisors each with a different expertise; each a strong advocate for a very important aspect of the welfare of the state.

 

Arnold starts off with the first advisor on his left who strongly suggests budget A is the best for the state. Going clockwise around the table the next advisor recognizing important aspects of the suggestion of the first advisor presents budget B as the better budget. Budget B contains aspects of budget A but also carries strong suggestions in accord with the second advisor’s area of expertise.

 

Each advisor in turn synthesizes the budget proposed by others, adding his articles of improvement. At the end of the first session there is a first draft of a budget. Each succeeding session synthesizes the previous results with new inputs until finally a budget of compromises is developed.

 

What we see in this imagined budget planning effort is a dialogical interchange encompassed within a dialectical process to produce a result. The dialogue is each advisor placing their argument before the group. The dialectic is the synthesizing of a particular proposal with another input thus creating a new proposal, which in turn is subjected to a continuing repetition. Proposal A is synthesized with proposal B producing proposal C and C is then synthesized with D to produce E etc.

 

The dialogical-dialectical process for each of us cannot contain all the participants that Arnold has for the state budget. When each Californian decides what the budget should be that individual must, in most cases, internalize the activities.

 

One can, by reading the papers, discover various opinions that others might have regarding the matter. However, it is up to the individual, in the solitude of her intellect, to provide the various actors. The enlightened citizen must create the multifaceted argument internally. The individual must empathetically create the dialogue and the dialectic within her own mind.

 

Imagine the number of “frames of reference” one would bring to bear on the issue of the comatose woman in Florida. If one becomes conscious of this issue and brings his/her intellect to bear on this issue s/he might be surprised by the possible ways to analyze this matter. One frame of reference we might not have thought about. That, of course, is the issue of our politicians injecting themselves, for their personal advantage, into the issue.

 

“It is this kind of empathetic understanding that underlies the possibility of any morality that is more than mere rule-following.” “Moral Imagination” by Mark Johnson.

[jedaisoul]

I've read what you said, but I cannot see an answer to the questions I asked, nor a refutation of the conclusions I made. Let me paraphrase the conclusions:

 

1. The end is not nigh.

 

2. Right without obligation is an imbalanced equation. It is the interplay of these you should be focussing on.

 

3. Good is so facile as to be virtually meaningless, or rather, means whatever you want it to. One man's good is another man's evil.

 

Do you have an answer to these views, preferably one that is succinct?

[LaurieAG]

In Australia we don't have a bill of rights so there are 4 possibilities.

 

legal and moral

legal and not moral

illegal and moral

illegal and not moral

 

I suppose that's all you can expect when your politicians set the standards without proper checks and balances on their actions.

[Kriminal99]

Utilitarianism assumes that human beings are capable of being "Competent judges" of what is the greatest good for all people. Most people cannot figure out what makes themselves happy, much less anyone else.

 

The moral system that satisfies the criteria that utilitarians look for is a moral capitalism. People must use their own resources combined with their own best competency of how to make themselves happy in order for the overall best system to result. As in the case of economic capitalism, this system depends on the free flow of information. As such, the number one moral imperative is honesty and valuing truth over all else. With this, people will always know what to do to make themselves happy.

[coberst]

Utilitarianism assumes that human beings are capable of being "Competent judges" of what is the greatest good for all people. Most people cannot figure out what makes themselves happy, much less anyone else.

 

The moral system that satisfies the criteria that utilitarians look for is a moral capitalism. People must use their own resources combined with their own best competency of how to make themselves happy in order for the overall best system to result. As in the case of economic capitalism, this system depends on the free flow of information. As such, the number one moral imperative is honesty and valuing truth over all else. With this, people will always know what to do to make themselves happy.

 

Yes I agree that utilitarianism depends on the sense of absoute confidence in the ability to make good judgmens.

 

It seems to me that capitalism and morality are not mates. Capitalism has no concern for morality, only for the bottom line while staying within the law.

Capitalism valueing truth and honesty is another disagreement I would have.

 

Morality has no place on the balance sheet.