The Moral Imperative

[TheEllipticalDisillusion]

For weeks I've been mulling this idea over in my head. Some introductory information: Deontological Ethics, Moral Imperative and Categorical Imperative. I post these links only as beginning definitions for anyone unsure.

I try to live by the rule of "do unto others, as you would have them do unto you." I treat most people nicely because I trust people to do the same. I have treated people poorly and was fully prepared for them to treat me as such because that is how I had acted towards them. If I cared enough, I'd apologize and try to move on from that action. Kant describes this imperative as derived from reason--all moral or immoral acts come from there.

Does right and wrong exist? Is something intrinsically right (or wrong), or only in terms of gains and losses?

[narya]

When considering working in a diverse group of people, it is sometimes better to use the Platinum Rule instead of the Golden Rule:

Treat others as they wish to be treated.

I don't believe there is a Natural Law that applies to everyone, that is woven into our fabric, so to speak.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Ho boy!!!!!111

I'll be back.

[Frelga]

I prefer Hillel's version, "That which is hateful to you do not do unto others."

Do right and wrong exist, obiectively? I think so. When you treated people poorly, did you have a sense that you were doing something wrong?

It's funny, I was just reading something more or less on the subject - a novel by Russian science fiction writer Efremov The Blade of a Razor. The protagonist, a scientist, talks about conscience from the materialistic standpoint. He says that for humans, who evolved in hostile environment yet who must spend many years raising each helpless child, kindness, generosity, selfless sacrifice and mutual support were necessary adaptations for the survival of the species.

[TheEllipticalDisillusion]

Do right and wrong exist, obiectively? I think so. When you treated people poorly, did you have a sense that you were doing something wrong?

What is right (or wrong) and how can we identify it (through reason, emotions, etc.)? I can't recall if I always knew that I was doing something wrong, but generally I knew that I was not doing "right." Whether my actions were wrong or not, would be another set of questions on the nature of "wrong."

Does the book explain why these systems were necessary for the survival of the species?

When considering working in a diverse group of people, it is sometimes better to use the Platinum Rule instead of the Golden Rule:

Treat others as they wish to be treated.

I don't believe there is a Natural Law that applies to everyone, that is woven into our fabric, so to speak.

I don't exactly subscribe to this because it hinges on me knowing how someone wants to be treated. Sometimes it might be evident, other times not so much. I can access myself quicker than another person. I'd be lying if I said I didn't act on this rule at times, though. Any understanding of morality that one comes upon is always going to be broken at times because of the nature of humanity.

There is an element of this rule in the golden rule, but it changes the starting point. In the golden rule the treatment begins with "you" to demonstrate to others how to respond, in the platinum rule the treatment begins with "me" to (perhaps guess) initiate the treatment waiting on your reaction to know if "I" was correct. I find it easier to get things done myself rather than wait for other people.

Is there something "right" or "wrong" about this platinum rule (or perhaps do those concepts not apply)?

[Nin]

Interesting... I am working on a text (unfortunately in German) about the notion of evil.

I have come to the conclusion that the worst deeds come from the desire to do good and that in generally people aim to be good and if they do evil things it is because they believe them to be rightous.

(There is a bit more to the idea, but I am terribly overworked until next week, we make an exposition for the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall)

[ArathornJax]

For me, there are two notions that I try to live by that come from Stephen Covey. One is to begin with the end in mind and the other is seek first to understand, then be understood. I cannot influence a person, I cannot really do anything with anyone until that individual feels that I have empathy for them, care for them and understand them. That doesn't come in a moment. W.H. Auden in his September 1, 1939 poem says "We must love one another or die." I have to say that I agree with him in the notion that if we do not learn to love in our lives, I firmly believe we do die in a metaphorical sense. We are social beings by our nature, and need social interaction. Thus the choice to love is up to each.

What does that mean to love? That depends on each of us. It means valuing an individual and that means listening to understand them. It means communicating, even when we disagree and then supporting that person in a decision that we disagree with. It can mean tough love when we have to take a stand when someone we love is hurting themselves through addiction or other means and the list can go on. In the end, it means learning to love in all of its aspects. That is why for me, my family is so critical to me. My wife, my kids, my sisters, all play a critical role in my life. Why? Because we have probably learned the most together because we have been around each other more, and thus are comfortable both being who we are and more importantly communicating. I also am lucky in that I have a close friend or two that I have this relationship with.

Does right and wrong exist? Depends on ones moral development. What is wrong to one may be right to another. In the end what is important I feel is that one does not let our culture define what is right or wrong, but that we as individuals define what is right or wrong based on experience and our own interactions with others and the world. I truly believe that most of us, not all, but most of us know when something is right or wrong to do. The decision comes down many times to doing what we want or doing what is right. Sometimes or often, depending where we are in defining our culture and how we interact with others, what we want is the right thing most of the time, and it is mutually beneficial to both myself and to others. I think when we reach that point we are beginning to understand right and wrong for ourselves. This is a great topic btw.

[yovargas]

Does right and wrong exist? Depends on ones moral development. What is wrong to one may be right to another.

I reject the notion that because people often disagree on what is moral that morally is then subjective. There can be an Objective Morality, but because of our ignorance, biases, and so on, our understanding will be flawed. It is up to us to continually seek a more "correct" morality with the understanding that without omniscience we will never attain perfect moral knowledge. But we'll get better.

[TheEllipticalDisillusion]

yova, would you agree that something is right because it is right absent of material/spiritual gains and losses? I definitely disagree that right and wrong depend on your moral development.

To no one specifically:

I haven't offered any actions that may be right or wrong because we often disagree on the particulars...

[yovargas]

I'm not sure what you mean by "material/spiritual gains and losses". Can you clarify?

[yovargas]

eta - wait, I think I see what you mean. My conclusion has been:
Morality has a Purpose, and yes, that Purpose is material/spiritual in nature. Disconnected from its material/spiritual Purpose, Morality is meaningless.

[TheEllipticalDisillusion]

I'll give you an example anyway, just to make sure we're both on the same page: I take an action (helping a stranger for example) anonymously simply because it is right without any gain in return (though something could be said for my own satisfaction). The action could be helping someone jump start their car, then they offer you money in return and you leave without even telling them your name--just "thank you" (because they are polite) and you drive off, never to see them again.

[axordil]

There is often gain in those situations, though, just not material gain. If I do something like that--helping someone without expectation of return--it makes me feel good. That feeling, of having done good, has value. It's also socially constructed to a great extent.

[ArathornJax]

There are several models of moral development that are out there. I'll use one to show what I am trying to say that right or wrong are linked to moral development.

Using Kohlberg's states of moral development I would argue that right or wrong does depend on one's moral development. In the pre-conventional stage or stage one known as obedience and punishment a child may choose not to do something because of the consequence given it, time out or a spanking. Eventually the child moves into the second stage, individualism and exchange, a 'What's in it for me" period which is just above the first stage. It moves into a I'll scratch your back you'll scratch mine, leading more to being more self centered and more focused on what's in it for me. Many adults are at this stage in our country because of the culture that we live in. Thus what may be wrong one day, if it serves one's self interest on another may be considered right. Thus right and wrong are linked at this point to one's moral development.

Kohlberg's third stage, or interpersonal relationship stage is the good boy good girl stage as it is commonly known. Here we seek approval from others, or their disapproval because we accept the roles that are defined for us. Here, our reasoning judges an action by its impact to relationships, which include things like respect, and the golden rule. For example, it is important to me to be liked so when I do this action then I am liked or disliked so I will do or not do this action. Again, our reasoning changes to include others but our moral development is defining what is right or wrong to us. Edit: This interpersonal stage is what many of you are talking about in giving someone a jump, or letting someone in to a driving lane etc. We do it because interpersonally it makes us feel good about ourselves and our relationships to others around us. A critical stage in development.

Stage four, the maintaining social order stage, is the authority and social order where by we recognized that in order to live in a society we have to have laws that are just and that are obeyed to make that society work. We move off the individual here to the needs of the group or society. A central idea or ideals drives what is considered right or wrong and culpability is a key to this stage. Most adults arrive at Stage Four and remain here most of their lives. But again, the moral development drives what is considered right or wrong.

Stage 5, social contract and individual rights, is based on a social contract where laws that need to be changed are changed through a majority's decision. Our democratic society is based on this stage of moral development.

Stage 6 is called universal principals and is where universal ethical principles drive moral choices. It is perhaps best summed up by the individual acts because it is right, and not because it is instrumental, expected, legal, or previously agreed upon. Few people if any get to stage 5 or 6, but again, one's definition of right and wrong here would be linked to one's moral development.

Kohlberg's states of moral development has its criticisms, but I used it as a model to make a point. We do go through stages of moral development in our lives, and in our society, we do regulate morals and right and wrong through the law. In his model, this is stage four where most of us are.

Perhaps the Heinz model shows it better:

In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug.

The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $ 1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug-for his wife. Should the husband have done that? (Kohlberg, 1963)."

Kohlberg was not concerned with the answer, what is right or wrong, but with the reasoning of the person. Here are examples of some of the reasoning and I use them to again make the point, that one's justification for one's choice does depend on one's moral development.

Stage one (obedience): Heinz should not steal the medicine because he will consequently be put in prison which will mean he is a bad person. Or: Heinz should steal the medicine because it is only worth $200 and not how much the druggist wanted for it; Heinz had even offered to pay for it and was not stealing anything else.

Stage two (self-interest): Heinz should steal the medicine because he will be much happier if he saves his wife, even if he will have to serve a prison sentence. Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine because prison is an awful place, and he would probably languish over a jail cell more than his wife's death.

Stage three (conformity): Heinz should steal the medicine because his wife expects it; he wants to be a good husband. Or: Heinz should not steal the drug because stealing is bad and he is not a criminal; he tried to do everything he could without breaking the law, you cannot blame him.

Stage four (law-and-order): Heinz should not steal the medicine because the law prohibits stealing, making it illegal. Or: Heinz should steal the drug for his wife but also take the prescribed punishment for the crime as well as paying the druggist what he is owed. Criminals cannot just run around without regard for the law; actions have consequences.

Stage five (human rights): Heinz should steal the medicine because everyone has a right to choose life, regardless of the law. Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine because the scientist has a right to fair compensation. Even if his wife is sick, it does not make his actions right.

Stage six (universal human ethics): Heinz should steal the medicine, because saving a human life is a more fundamental value than the property rights of another person. Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine, because others may need the medicine just as badly, and their lives are equally significant.

Because we live in a society that is mainly in stage 4, law and order, Heinz would be required to go to jail and then pay the pharmacist back for the cost of the drug. We can then discuss the other developments, and if they were right or wrong but it can be argued that will depend where we are in our own moral development.

So I offer that as an explanation for what I was trying to say. I feel we all have a moral journey to go on in life, and that we probably float between several of the stages at different periods of our lives for various reasons. In the end though, we do have to hopefully get to the point where we do seek a higher morality. Or is stage 4, law and order the best we can do with so many people and so many different belief systems in existence?

[Primula Baggins]

There is often gain in those situations, though, just not material gain. If I do something like that--helping someone without expectation of return--it makes me feel good. That feeling, of having done good, has value. It's also socially constructed to a great extent.

Not only that, but we all benefit if we live in a society where people do such things. Sooner or later, and probably more than once, we will be on the receiving end. On a trivial scale, I think of that often in traffic, when I let someone into my line of traffic who's waiting at an on-ramp. It slows me down, but on a fairly regular basis I'm the one on the on-ramp, and I benefit because that kind of courtesy happens to be common where I live. So in doing that small act of courtesy, I'm contributing to a culture of courtesy that benefits me.

ETA: Cross-posted with AJ, whose interesting post I will have to come back and read more carefully later!

[axordil]

On ramp ethics are in interesting thought problem in and of themselves. If there's only one person waiting to get on, and 100 people behind you, does the good done for the one by letting them in justify the delay to the 100? If there's no one behind you, and it's only affecting you...there's also no real need to be "nice" as the person can get on after you with virtually no delay.

AJ--

The only problem I have with models like Kohlberg's is that anything above level two feels like it can be collapsed down to a self interest argument. Conformity to social norms, for example, is valuable to an individual because it makes one's life easier. Lack of conformity makes one's life harder. Same with social order--it's in one's best interest to avoid jail, fines et al.

Ultimately morals come down to one of two things: self interest or belief in a higher power's endorsement/enforcement of moral behavior. Both, however, have strong cultural components.

[yovargas]

The only problem I have with models like Kohlberg's is that anything above level two feels like it can be collapsed down to a self interest argument.

Every action you take can be collapsed down to a self interest argument. Every single one. Unless you're under mind control.

Ultimately morals come down to one of two things: self interest or belief in a higher power's endorsement/enforcement of moral behavior. Both, however, have strong cultural components.

That only describes the reasons for being moral, not what being moral itself means.

[vison]

Without self-interest you die.

But "self-interest" does not mean "harm others".

There is no harm in "feeling good" from doing a kind deed. It is exactly that "feeling good" that makes us do kind and loving deeds. This does not lessen the value of kindness, it makes it possible in the first place.

There is a terrible argument, I can't articulate it properly, but it goes that you are "wrong" to do a good deed if it makes you feel good. It only counts if it hurts YOU. A sacrifice, in other words. It isn't a "sacrifice" if it doesn't hurt. I think that is a vile notion.

[yovargas]

There is a terrible argument, I can't articulate it properly, but it goes that you are "wrong" to do a good deed if it makes you feel good.

Kant, more or less, argued this, iirc.
I hate Kant.

[Frelga]

In the pre-conventional stage or stage one known as obedience and punishment a child may choose not to do something because of the consequence given it, time out or a spanking.

I don't think Kohlberg has been around little children much, or at least children not raised by horribly punitive parents. I had seen children, all raised in loving homes, be spontanneously generous, caring, and selflessly loving, to a degree that they understand the world and the needs of the others.

I didn't go on to read about stage two.

TED, I'll go back and address your questions about my first post later.