Morality and Ethics

[Marvin Edwards]

We removed Hussein and Qaddafi because it was a good thing to get rid of tem becuase they were dictators and undemocratic. Result never ending civil war and destruction. The Star Trek Prime Directive.

Our forign policy continues to be western liberal democarcy is best for the entire world when we keep seeing it is not.

An aboriginal group in the Amazon has a relatively good life with population in balance with resources. You go in and provide inoculations and prenatal care raising the population which exhausts resources. Playing god.

I watched a BBC segment about an area in Africa. Cattle and large families, no starvation, decent shelter, and little education. Start educating people who migrate to cities and end up in poverty. Again the Prime Directive.

One can be an atheist rejecting gods, yet act as if one were god imposing arbitrary morality.

Morality seeks the best good and the least harm for everyone. Ethics seeks the best rules to follow in order to achieve that result

Simplistic at best. What is the best good? This is all pop slogans. Chines communists say the best good fr the country is centralized authoritarian control and enforced conformity.

The Star Trek Prime Directive says you do not tinker in other cultures even with best intentions because yoou can not see all ends.

You've pointed out the unseen harms of the U.S. trying to solve other countries problems. So, you are applying the definition of moral judgment: seeking the best good and least harm for everyone. And you are proposing an ethical rule, the Prime Directive, as the best way to avoid creating unnecessary harm.

 

[steve_bank]

No so much, I ma sayimh morality is rlevve and situational not absolute, and those who think it s absolute set themselves up as god.

The pope for example. A presumption of moralt truth by proclamation.

You are doing the usual Marvin philosophical two step. Your answer to the question if doing what you think is right may be wrong appears to be ye, albeit in a convoluted round about way.

Progressives in Seattle push p[policies ignoring harmful side efrects. Anti abortion actisvits want to ban abortion but oppose govt funding programs that ensure nutrition and health care for kids.

Mpreility and ethics are not an academic abstract debate.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

No so much, I ma sayimh morality is rlevve and situational not absolute, and those who think it s absolute set themselves up as god.

Yes. One of the problems with "commandments" or "principles" is that they must be short enough to be remembered, but then they are too short to cover all of the exceptions that apply in special situations.

There is the notion, though, of an Ideal set of rules, that would cover everything and all situations, which, although as you point out it does not yet exist, still we might be evolving toward it.

The pope for example. A presumption of moralt truth by proclamation.

My mother used to tell me that God has a reason behind every rule, and that its purpose was to be good for us. In other words, consequentialists determine the best rules and then the deontologists spread them as the word of God.

You are doing the usual Marvin philosophical two step.

Oh crap! I was trying so hard to do the philosophical Samba.

Your answer to the question if doing what you think is right may be wrong appears to be yes, albeit in a convoluted round about way.

Yeah. But doesn't it make you nervous when you think you are being followed? I've got to get this guy off my tail.

Progressives in Seattle push policies ignoring harmful side effects. Anti abortion activists want to ban abortion but oppose govt funding programs that ensure nutrition and health care for kids.

It is best to consider anyone who professes morality as a potential ally. If you have a sound moral argument then you may be able to bring them around to your side on specific issues.

Oh, by the way, government funding, to ensure nutrition and health care for kids, would be an example of people thinking they are doing good for someone else, and it being the right thing rather than the wrong thing to do. (Yet another answer to your original question).

Morality and ethics are not an academic abstract debate.

Damn straight.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

We removed Hussein and Qaddafi because it was a good thing to get rid of tem becuase they were dictators and undemocratic. Result never ending civil war and destruction. The Star Trek Prime Directive.

Our forign policy continues to be western liberal democarcy is best for the entire world when we keep seeing it is not.

An aboriginal group in the Amazon has a relatively good life with population in balance with resources. You go in and provide inoculations and prenatal care raising the population which exhausts resources. Playing god.

I watched a BBC segment about an area in Africa. Cattle and large families, no starvation, decent shelter, and little education. Start educating people who migrate to cities and end up in poverty. Again the Prime Directive.

One can be an atheist rejecting gods, yet act as if one were god imposing arbitrary morality.

Morality seeks the best good and the least harm for everyone. Ethics seeks the best rules to follow in order to achieve that result

Simplistic at best. What is the best good? This is all pop slogans. Chines communists say the best good fr the country is centralized authoritarian control and enforced conformity.

The Star Trek Prime Directive says you do not tinker in other cultures even with best intentions because yoou can not see all ends.

You've pointed out the unseen harms of the U.S. trying to solve other countries problems. So, you are applying the definition of moral judgment: seeking the best good and least harm for everyone. And you are proposing an ethical rule, the Prime Directive, as the best way to avoid creating unnecessary harm.

The trouble with interfering, in the case of Iraq, was not that we were interfering, but the trouble was that we were interfering in a complicated and dysfunctional society that our government, at the time, could not have possibly understood. They stormed in with no understanding of political nuance.

It is very much like my resentment over how westerners deal with Israeli-Palistinian relations. Many westerners fail to recognize how toxic it is that there are forces in Israeli politics that would create a murderous, expansionist ethnostate. They ought to receive the censure of everyone, both within and outside of the Israeli government. However, westerners treat Israel as if they were a political monolith, and their indigenous liberals are treated as if they did not exist. Westerners that criticize racist policies in Israel's government treat them as if they were all of one mind and zealously united behind those policies. Instead of looking for political allies within Israel to address this problem, westerners tend to mindlessly pump their fists with chants of "death to Israel!" This behavior has done nothing whatsoever to change the behavior of the Israeli government, but it has led to an endless succession of political triumphs for their most vile and corrupted conservative factions. The people of that country would rather keep a criminal gang in their government than support any party that would sympathize with the views of more rational western liberals.

Yet the same problem occurs in our relations with Iran. We could not do more to undermine their indigenous reformers if we were doing it on purpose, and their reformers do not care about the United States. Their reformers care about protecting their country's indigenous industries and providing opportunities for companies within their country to do a normal business with international partners. However, our continuing arrogance gives their hardliners grounds to view the United States as if we were "puppet-masters" with their well-meaning reformers dancing on our strings. This does not mean that we should not say or do anything at all, but the way that we approach conversations with them gives fuel to their hardliner sentiments.

It's not the fact that we meddle, but it's the arrogant and imperious manner in which we do so. We cannot help but influence another culture if we interact with them at all.

We could deal much more easily with Islamic cultures by using such phrasing as, "We are trying very hard to prevent our people from turning hostile toward the people that flee your country and come here, looking for career opportunities and greater political stability, but every time your country's leaders call America 'The Great Satan,' people in our country that want to protect them lose power, which endangers your country's diaspora. It would make us substantially happier if you would not make our jobs difficult. Also, maybe you should support your reformers because your people might want to go home if you had more jobs for them, but we don't want to impose."

It is impossible for two nations to exist without affecting each other, but pompousness never helps relations.

 

[steve_bank]

Well Marvin, I am not worried about being followed but my apartment is completely lined with aluminum foil including windows to keep surveillance satellites from reading my brain.

It's not the fact that we meddle, but it's the arrogant and imperious manner in which we do so. We cannot help but influence another culture if we interact with them at all.

Yes indeed. Along with the idea we are ordained by god and represent an absolute morality. 'One nation under god..'

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Morality seeks the best good and least harm for everyone.

I can accept this to a point.

It cannot be said objectively, only subjectively.

The fittest know that when they compete, they will create a loser/harm, and yet to stop him or herself from doing that small harm, a greater harm would be done to the whole fitness level of the species.

It is thus moral for you to do harm, when the greater good is the objective.

I like living in a dualistic universe.

Regards
DL

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Morality seeks the best good and least harm for everyone.

I can accept this to a point.

It cannot be said objectively, only subjectively.

The fittest know that when they compete, they will create a loser/harm, and yet to stop him or herself from doing that small harm, a greater harm would be done to the whole fitness level of the species.

It is thus moral for you to do harm, when the greater good is the objective.

I like living in a dualistic universe.

Regards
DL

Right. We call something "good" if it meets a real need of the individual, the society, or the species. The species benefits from competition, so, both the winner and the loser should celebrate.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Morality seeks the best good and least harm for everyone.

I can accept this to a point.

It cannot be said objectively, only subjectively.

The fittest know that when they compete, they will create a loser/harm, and yet to stop him or herself from doing that small harm, a greater harm would be done to the whole fitness level of the species.

It is thus moral for you to do harm, when the greater good is the objective.

I like living in a dualistic universe.

Regards
DL

Right. We call something "good" if it meets a real need of the individual, the society, or the species. The species benefits from competition, so, both the winner and the loser should celebrate.

Did or do you celebrate when you lose at an important competition?

Those in our world can celebrate loses because of our social safety nets.

In other areas, you lose at a job competition and you might starve to death.

Regards
DL

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Did or do you celebrate when you lose at an important competition?

Probably not, but we all celebrate the Olympics.

Those in our world can celebrate loses because of our social safety nets. In other areas, you lose at a job competition and you might starve to death.

Indeed. So, it is incumbent upon us all to support safety nets.