The Moral Imperative

[solicitr]

Er, that wasn't me.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

That was MithLuin who made that comment.

[Cerin]

I realize it was TED's comment I was commenting on. Didn't mean to imply it was your thought.

edit: cross-post

V, I was intending to reply to a comment of TEDs. Perhaps I should stay out of these discussions since I just seem to be confusing everyone.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

No, it was MithLuin that you quoted as if it was solicitr.

[Cerin]

Oh, ok, got it now. I see I confused the avatars.

So sorry.

[TheEllipticalDisillusion]

Cerin, I think TED was referring to the 'let nature take its course' approach, in which you wait for an epidemic or war to reduce population.

Thanks, Mith. If you deliberately decided to take no intervening action in anticipation that war and epidemic would occur, and then when they did occur, took no steps to mitigate the death tolls, I guess I can see where that would be viewed as an immoral choice. But the notion that either (all) war (regardless of circumstances) or a flu bug could in themselves be viewed as either immoral or a choice seemed a bit odd l to me.


edit to correctly attribute quote and explain edit

I'm not offering them as concrete choices, but they are realities that do occur and have "culled" the population at times. That isn't their purpose, but their effect. Failure to act has a moral component. What's the right choice, what's the wrong choice, is there a right or wrong choice...

[solicitr]

I would say that there is a difference between not making more people, and eliminating those already here.

In the latter case, can inaction be immoral? Unquestionably. After all, those who die of famine or pestilence suffer, they're not just numbers. I think all would agree that the Tuskeegee Experiment was immoral, although it did nothing "active' at all.

[N.E. Brigand]

Well, we could always develop space travel and expand to other planets. That has the benefit of being fun and exciting - much better than war or famine, and possibly even moral, too.
Though I realize that this isn't exactly a feasible solution...

I've only read short bits of C.S. Lewis's space trilogy, but I think I recall that he there refers to the vast distances of space as God's "quarantine" to keep Earth and humankind from infecting the rest of the universe.

[Tar-Palantir]

all would agree that the Tuskeegee Experiment was immoral, although it did nothing "active' at all

Well I wouldn't necessarily agree ':scratch:' ! in the sense that I believe that the reality of this study has probably been presented in a rather selective, distorted and anachronistic fashion for political reasons.

I have been influenced in this by reading reference 5 described in this book review: http://ps.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/repr ... /979-a.pdf

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Your link doesn't work. I think you better explain what you are saying. I find it very difficult to believe that any reasonable person could find anything good to say about that extremely sorry chapter in American history, but I will withhold further judgment until you explain yourself further. But have a care.

[Tar-Palantir]

Thanks Voronwë - I fixed the link.

I do have a care! this is my professional subject. Which doesn't mean I am necessarily correct, but that I have gone into the background in some detail.

[axordil]

I read the review, and it doesn't really affect my evaluation of the TE: of course the people involved thought they were acting ethically when they started. Whether or not one judges them by the yardstick of 1930 or not becomes irrelevant, though, as that yardstick becomes irrelevant with the passage of time. By the time the TE was brought to an end in 1972, the only excuse they had for continuing was moral inertia.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: no matter how lofty your goal, no matter how noble your cause, no matter how vital your mission, if you look down and notice that you're eating babies, you fell off the moral rails at some point. I call it the lesson of the Fourth Crusade, and maybe some millennium or other we'll all have some grasp of it.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Thanks for fixing the link. I read the review, and I found the arguments at justifying a clear and gross example of racist conduct about as convincing as Holocaust denial.

[Tar-Palantir]

Voronwë - that was a rather intemperate remark, I feel.

The whole point of the contextual infromation is to make clear that the TE is precisely not the moral equivalent of the Nazi holocaust, and it does nobody credit to make-out that they were morally equivalent.

Anyway, I'll leave it at that.

[vison]

I would say, perhaps, "morally equivalent" but "not as terrible in scope".

How would that do?

Right now, as we sit at our desks being philosophical, men from the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia are on trial. Where does this fit, in the scheme of horror?

[axordil]

The larger question--at what point should one realize one's society as a whole may have ethical or moral issues, issues one should DO something about instead of participating in--is a very difficult one, and not one I'm sure there's a standard answer for it. Beyond a certain point it would not have even been possible to formulate a dissenting view resembling modern ethical behavior, and the individual ethical lapses are truly drowned out in the cultural ones. Shakespeare was an anti-Semite, and there's nothing we can do about it, because by our standards, ALL Elizabethan Christians were.

We can hold those who did the TE, or those who did concentration camp experiments, to a higher standard than, say, people from the 16th century, because pretty much all the ethical judgments needed to NOT do those particular wrongs were possible to make in 1930. They were just HARDER to make than they are now, or in 1950, or 1970.

[MithLuin]

I think people from all times have the opportunity to be ethical. You can always dare to be counter cultural .

But I agree that it's...harder...if everyone around you accepts something that's immoral and thinks nothing of it. Not in a 'well, there's always bad stuff in the world' kinda way, but in a 'what do you mean there's anything wrong with that?' kinda way.

I do think it's important to realize that none of us is perfect, and to remember historical context when trying to understand a situation. But that's not the same as excusing the behavior. It's more of a 'to whom much is given, much is expected' kinda thing.

I realize I'm not being very precise (how many times did I just say 'kinda'??), but the idea I'm getting at is that you don't get off the hook for not knowing better or being a product of your environment. Your culpability is reduced, not eliminated, because, as ax points out...at some point, you're supposed to have the very human reaction of, 'hey, this can't be good....'

Maybe there are some situations or cultures where your culpability would be greatly reduced...but if something is wrong now, it was probably still wrong then, and if we can recognize it, then other human beings could potentially recognize it, too. Not every single one of Shakespeare's contemporaries was an antisemite, I wouldn't think, even if such an attitude was extremely common place. And even Shakespeare wrote the 'If you prick me, do I not bleed?' speech.


About the horsey avatars: I understand how you could confuse the two! Mine is Glorfindel, by Anke Eissmann . Balrog-slaying elf, Crusader...same difference...

[axordil]

Not every single one of Shakespeare's contemporaries was an antisemite, I wouldn't think, even if such an attitude was extremely common place.

Well, no, it's true: some were Jews. But even those who were less anti-Semitic would be seen as pretty bigoted by current standards. That from that something like the "If you prick me" speech could nonetheless emerge is remarkable--although of course Shylock gets forcibly converted later, which is supposed to be a happy ending.

I'm not saying it's only harder. I'm saying past a certain point, the philosophical and ethical tools are not available. You can be countercultural all you want, but no amount of freethinking will get you out of the dominant paradigm until there's another paradigm available. Some things we think are wrong "now" were simply NOT wrong "then."

[Nin]

Of course, I had to look up what the Tuskegee Experiment was and it leads me to a request: very often, American references are used as common knowledge in discussions - and well, they are not. Would it be possible to include explanation links if you mention specific American examples, questions or persons?

[Alatar]

I agree with Nin, as usual!