Ethics and Morality, Huh?

[Baron Max]

I'm trying to get a good grasp on ethics and morality - perhaps y'all can help?

Let's assume a hypothetical island with two groups of people ...group A and group B. The two groups have been isolated by social customs and standards as well as island terrain. There is little or no social or commercial interaction between the two groups, and hasn't been for hundreds of years.

The A's have developed and adopted a high ethical and moral standard for their society. They're highly idealistic and totally non-voilent even to the point of becoming veggans out of fear of harming any animals. It's a fairy tale society of love, compassion, understanding, tolerance, ...., well, it's a liberal idealist's paradise.

The B's have developed a much more pragmatic and violent way of life. Disagreements are settled with sword and pistol duels as well as fistfights. The B's have a government that exerts tight controls over industry and commerce, etc., but do so with the power of the gun and sword. Women of B are little more than servants, slaves and objects for sex and other pleasures.

***

Okay, one day the B's decide to invade. The B's beat, stomp, kick, whip, kill A's by the hundreds and destroy homes and buildings with fire and explosives. Finally, of course, the few remaining A's huddle together in surrender and submission, their fairy tale world ripped asunder and destroyed, and most of their friends have been killed, raped and beaten.

***

Now for the questions about ethics and morality:

1. Was it ethical and moral for the A's to hold such high-falutin' standards of ethics and morality as to render their society defenseless and vulnerable to attack and subjugation by the B's?

2. If the answer to 1.) above is no, then:

a. How is a society to hold high moral and ethical standards without making the society vulnerable to their enemies or possible future enemies?

b. And does this mean that high moral and ethical standards can never actually be implemented in any human society? That high moral and ethical standards are only things to talk about in philosophical discussions?

c. How can a society of high moral and ethical standards keep and support a defensive force (military or police) without giving up some of those standards of morality and ethics?
d. And if the ethics and morality can be given up or modified on a whim, then what good are ethical and moral standards?

Baron Max

 

[swarm]

Ah, the lovely false dilemma.

I happen to be very like the A group, peaceful, educated, liberal. But there is an exception. Part of my education is in military and martial matters. I'm not defenseless and I'm happy to help my other A's in this sort of thing when there is need.

It this liberal value called being well rounded.

 

[Pandaemoni]

Now for the questions about ethics and morality:

1. Was it ethical and moral for the A's to hold such high-falutin' standards of ethics and morality as to render their society defenseless and vulnerable to attack and subjugation by the B's?

The question is moot, especially in light of the premise of the hypothetical: two societies develop two different sets of ethics. Think about it. If there are different ethical regimes in the world, then the obvious precursor to answering your question is "By whose set of ethics?"

Let's imagine that the A and B ethoses are the only ones that matter. From the standpoint of A's ethics their actions likely are ethical and moral. The B society may disagree.

I think what you may mean to say is, "Under my system of ethics it is wrong for them to do this, because ethics should add to the ability of the society to repel aggressors. Do you agree or disagree?" (or something along those lines).

I would point out that the A society's ethics likely have different strengths than those of B. Cooperation is doubtlessly easier in many contexts when not living in the homicidal society. Rates of mental and emotional trauma are likely less for the period of the isolation. Having both societies in the world, with their different strategies, likely enhances the viability of the human species overall, because the A society could have cooperatively weathered threats that would have torn the B society apart. On the other hand, the B society has a more varied diet and a greater ability to weather military challenges, so in other contexts they have the survival advantage.

Diversification is a strength if you look at both societies in a grander picture. So had the A's given up their ethical system to adopt B's, they would be reducing the chance of survival for humanity as a whole. To me, that sounds unethical.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

This is obviously a biased scenario set up to scare people into supporting the military & the war government.

 

[Simon Anders]

Some observations:
1) Both groups are going to consider themselves as having high ethical standards.
I don't know of any fascist societies, which the latter sounds like, that do not consider themselves on the high moral ground and see the hippies, degenerates (or whatever term they would have for Group A) as being immoral.
2) I think it is interesting that you see Group B as being pragmatic. In fact they are not pragmatic. If they decided to be like Group A, they would never need their skills. In fact they have a society where members are killed on points of honor or whatever, regularly, and they themselves become killers and oppressors - which has a downside, though it is not as far down as the victims. They also denigrate women, which also has a downside, even for the men, though they often don't realize this.

The primary mistake is Group B's, and then the more complicated issue arises around what other groups should do given there are people who like society to be like Group B's, consider it moral and are thus attached to it for more than pragmatic reasons.

I think the questions are not so easy to answer and good ones, but I thought I would start with some of the assumptions I had problems with in the way you framed the issues in the scenario.

 

[greenberg]

Now for the questions about ethics and morality:

It all depends on whether we posit that a person is his or her body and nothing more, or not.

Maintaing high pacifist standards becomes a problem only if we posit that there is no God, or at least no karma and no rebirth.
Which is precisely the problem that the modern Western world is facing today: Westerners aspire to high pacifist standards, but because people in the West mostly don't really believe in God, nor in karma or rebirth, they can't keep to those standards, they are bound to violate them.

If this one lifetime and this one body that one has is all there is to one's existence, then it is indeed morally wrong to hold high pacifist standards that make one vulnerable to those who don't. Given of course that we posit that endangering bodily welfare is that which is wrong.
However, even if this one lifetime and this one body that one has is all there is to one's existence, then taking an aggressive stance on life directly counterproductive as well, as it leads to fights, opression and killings, and thus loss of bodily welfare - and as such, taking the aggressive stance is morally wrong too.

But it is actually the idea that this one lifetime and this one body that one has is all there is to one's existence that is morally wrong, not the pacifism or aggressiveness per se.
Most ethical dilemmas that we discuss are bound to remain unresolved and present us with double binds, as long as we posit that this one lifetime and this one body that one has is all there is to one's existence.

 

[Baron Max]

Hmm, y'all make excellent points about ethics and morals. But it also shows that I didn't do a very good job of getting my ideas across properly.

What I was really trying to get started was a discussion of HOW a society can or does modify it's ehtics and morality so as to accommodate outside influences. In the scenario above, I was hoping that someone would mention that the A's should have modified their ethics and morals to fight for their freedoms instead of being subjugated.

But I think that same issue, how to modify a society's ethics and morals, is coming more and more to the modern world in which we now live. For example, in one thread here about war, one poster holds such high moral standards for our troops that, had we fought that way in WW II, they'd have most assuredly lost the war in Europe. When I pointed that out, his answer was, of course, that he would have found ways to win without violating his ethics and morals. See what I mean?

And it's not just in times of war or conflict, it's also in regard to criminals and the police and the courts. If we, as a society, hold such high standards of morality and ethics for our police, the criminals can and probably will, simply overwhelm them. Again, ...see what I mean?

Gee, I hope I got the point across this time. Sorry about the foolish A's and B's!

Baron Max

 

[greenberg]

What I was really trying to get started was a discussion of HOW a society can or does modify it's ehtics and morality so as to accommodate outside influences.

Left to its own devices, a society (or an individual) cannot create or modify its (or their) morality in such a way as to accomodate outside influences without running into contradictions. As human history has provided ample evidence for.

But I think that same issue, how to modify a society's ethics and morals, is coming more and more to the modern world in which we now live.

Definitely.

 

[one_raven]

A defensive war is not unethical, even to most liberal, hippie, pacifists.

Many people see Communism as a utopian ideal.
Whether or not you agree is not the issue or the topic of discussion.
Communism, even if you do see it as ideal, can not exist in the post industrial world because once you dismantle the state and standing Army, you are sitting ducks for the rest of the world to attack and take your resources (kind of like your groups A and B up there).
The answer, according to Trotsky, was Communist world domination.
Truly, world domination would be the only way for Communism (as Marx envisioned it) to take hold and keep that hold.
Unfortunately, even if you did manage to find a way to conquer the whole world and rule it under the same system (which people have been trying ever since the first tribes existed) how do you keep the strangle hold without having a militarty force under state rule? You don't.
Communism, as Marx saw it, is simply not possible in the modern world.

So, today's Communists have taken Marx and Engel's orginal idea, learned from the failures of Lenin, Stalin Mao and others, and adapted it to modern notions of industrial and commercial dominance and turned it into more of a totalitarian socialist state.

Is it the same system Marx envisioned? Of course not.
Is it operating under the same ideals? Some think so.

Ideals are abstract - not concrete.

The collective efforts of all should be utilized to make sure all are fed. That would be an example of an ideal.
There are many different ways to reach for and work towards that ideal.
Laws, practices and systems must be flexible and pragmatic to strive toward static, underpinning ideals.

 

[swarm]

greenberg
cannot create or modify its (or their) morality in such a way as to accomodate outside influences without running into contradictions.

Only if you assume absolute morality.

Non absolute moralities flex and flow just fine.

 

[Tiassa]

Dynamic morality

Non absolute moralities flex and flow just fine.

Some would question whether dynamic morality is any morality at all, instead transforming into a broad-scale situational ethical assertion.

 

[Balerion]

So basically this is Baron trying to settle a bet betwixt himself and another poster.

I think the main question is: Is the pussy liberal that has pussy liberal ideals and morals capable of winning a war without shaking his pussy liberal ideals and morals?

Am I close?

The problem is, as someone else pointed out, that you simply assume that a liberal's ideals and morals prevent him or her from engaging in combat. You assume the liberal can't fight. Big mistake.

 

[Simon Anders]

You assume the liberal can't fight. Big mistake.

And if we take 'fight' in its broad sense, if the liberals are such pussies, how come the conservatives seem so victimized by them?

 

[swarm]

Tiassa
Some would question whether dynamic morality is any morality at all, instead transforming into a broad-scale situational ethical assertion.

The same people tend to believe in a magic fairy that burns their enemies forever, but is supposedly "good."

 

[swarm]

JDawg
You assume the liberal can't fight. Big mistake.

The Germans, specifically the Prussians, and the Japanese both had this exact theory about the US. We were seen as pussy liberals who had no stomach for a fight.

Not wanting to fight and not being able to fight have no relation to each other.

 

[Baron Max]

A defensive war is not unethical, even to most liberal, hippie, pacifists.

If not, then what kind of "ethics" do they hold? As I noted above, the "Thou shall not kill" is a very simple, to-the-point ethical, moral stance. To begin to modify that to suit whatever "defense" you think is necessary is ...not ethical, is it?

Attila the Hun probably held an ethical stance of "Thou shall not kill a Hun, but it's okay to kill anyone else on Earth". So, was Attila ethical in his violent, murdering storm across Europe? Why does that not seem right???

See? If you can modify the ethics that YOU hold true, then how can you hold others to those same ethics? If you can modify them, why can't others?

Ideals are abstract - not concrete.
There are many different ways to reach for and work towards that ideal.

So some ethical ideal like "Thou shall not kill" is ...just fanciful words? I mean, why even have the freakin' thing if anyone can get around it with just some fancy speeches or a good defense attorney?

So you see, I'm right back to confusing part of ethics and morality. What the hell are they? And why do we think they're important ...if we can modify them to whatever suits our purpose at the time - simply by saying they're not concrete?

Are ethics, ideals simply things to talk about over coffee or beer? Or to use to make accusations of wrong-doing by others that we don't like? ...even while shirking our own adherence to those same ethics and ideals?

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

So basically this is Baron trying to settle a bet betwixt himself and another poster.

No, not a bet. But the thread "Killing Time" got me to thinking once again about ethics and morality in time of war/conflict. In that thread, one poster essentially holds wartime ethics so high n' mighty, that had we fought World War II Europe as he proposes, then we'd have lost that war absolutely and without a doubt.

In fact, with his stated ethics, we would never have gone to war in the first place. And yet, with all that, he's stated that he agrees with our going to war against Hitler.

So, ..it got me to thinking; What the hell are ethics and morals if they would actually prevent us from winning WW II Europe? And by that same thought, had we held those same ethics and morals, it would have been implicit approval of Hitler's conquest of Europe, right? "It's okay, Adolf, we won't hinder your goals because we're more ethical and moral than you are." ???

I think the main question is: Is the pussy liberal that has pussy liberal ideals and morals capable of winning a war without shaking his pussy liberal ideals and morals?

No, but that's close. Basically it's ...how can we hold pussy liberal ideals, yet still go to war at all, anywhere, any time, including for self-defense? Pussy liberal ideals are apparently what we want to force others to adhere to while we flaunt them at will.

The UN held long conferences and meetings, and finally announced that the killing in Darfur wasn't very nice. Hmm. Okay. Yet the killings, rapes and starvation has continued for years after the announcements. So the question might be; Is it ethical and moral to call something unethical and immoral, yet allow it to continue unabated? If so, again, what the hell good is ethics and morals? Or is it that we just announce something like that, then we wash our hands of it ...and call ourselves ethical and moral?

...you simply assume that a liberal's ideals and morals prevent him or her from engaging in combat.

Why hold to liberal ideals if the liberal is actually willing to trash those same principles to go into combat? Even in self-defense. Why bother stating any ideals of peace, non-voilence, etc., yet still be willing to discard them at a moments notice?

And mostly what bothers me is how we talk and talk about ethics and human rights, etc., but seem to do nothing about any of the "violations". Is it ethical to hold high n' mighty ideals, but allow those violations to continue unabated?

Baron Max

 

[Balerion]

No, not a bet. But the thread "Killing Time" got me to thinking once again about ethics and morality in time of war/conflict. In that thread, one poster essentially holds wartime ethics so high n' mighty, that had we fought World War II Europe as he proposes, then we'd have lost that war absolutely and without a doubt.

What were his "wartime ethics"? You have yet to make that clear; you've only given us your verdict of them, which, no offense, is something I would take with a grain of salt.

In fact, with his stated ethics, we would never have gone to war in the first place. And yet, with all that, he's stated that he agrees with our going to war against Hitler.

He can't have both. So apparently he doesn't hold his ethics so high n' mighty, does he?

So, ..it got me to thinking; What the hell are ethics and morals if they would actually prevent us from winning WW II Europe? And by that same thought, had we held those same ethics and morals, it would have been implicit approval of Hitler's conquest of Europe, right? "It's okay, Adolf, we won't hinder your goals because we're more ethical and moral than you are." ???

That's pretty effed up logic right there. You don't know what the hypothetical morals are, and yet you attribute specific policies to them...

Anyway, what choice did we have but to go to war? There isn't one person alive who would tell you that we had a choice in the matter. We were attacked, and had to retaliate. Once in, there was no way to avoid the conflict in Europe.

[quoteNo, but that's close. Basically it's ...how can we hold pussy liberal ideals, yet still go to war at all, anywhere, any time, including for self-defense? Pussy liberal ideals are apparently what we want to force others to adhere to while we flaunt them at will.[/quote]

Someone said earlier, there is a difference between not fighting, and not wanting to fight. Bruce Lee didn't want to fight, but if you tested him, you'd get your teeth knocked down your throat. National security sometimes involves going to war. Granted, my belief is that it doesn't involve going to war as much as we do now, but war is inevitable. Even the most liberal person in the world knows this to be true.

The UN held long conferences and meetings, and finally announced that the killing in Darfur wasn't very nice. Hmm. Okay. Yet the killings, rapes and starvation has continued for years after the announcements. So the question might be; Is it ethical and moral to call something unethical and immoral, yet allow it to continue unabated? If so, again, what the hell good is ethics and morals? Or is it that we just announce something like that, then we wash our hands of it ...and call ourselves ethical and moral?

I don't particularly care for the United Nations. They do some things well, but they fall very short in other areas. Without our support, they are virtually invisible against true aggressors. Granted, we happen to be a true aggressor...but you get what I'm saying...

Why hold to liberal ideals if the liberal is actually willing to trash those same principles to go into combat? Even in self-defense. Why bother stating any ideals of peace, non-voilence, etc., yet still be willing to discard them at a moments notice?

Don't hold the flawed ideals of one self-proclaimed liberal to be the mantra for the rest of us. I notice that people who don't have a very good case to argue do things like that; they pinpoint one quote, or pick on one example, rather than looking at the whole picture.

Wanting to maintain peace and take a diplomatic approach first rather than a military one, then proceeding to go to war, does not mean you've thrown your ethics away. It means (hopefully) that you've attempted to take the diplomatic, non-violent approach, and now combat is your only option.

And mostly what bothers me is how we talk and talk about ethics and human rights, etc., but seem to do nothing about any of the "violations". Is it ethical to hold high n' mighty ideals, but allow those violations to continue unabated?

I agree that there are terrible things going on in this world that deserve our attention more than this fabricated war in the Middle East. Our resources should be in places like Darfur, not Iraq. But that does not mean we should jump into combat first...it means we should take every diplomatic route available, and if that doesn't work, then we flex our muscle. But never flex first. That's the point of being non-violent. It doesn't mean you would never fight, or are incapable of it.

 

[Baron Max]

What were his "wartime ethics"? You have yet to make that clear; you've only given us your verdict of them, which, no offense, is something I would take with a grain of salt.

This thread is NOT about any one particular ethical standard or morality, but about the general concept of ethics and morality. I'd rather not get into particulars except as examples that might help illustrate a point.

He can't have both. So apparently he doesn't hold his ethics so high n' mighty, does he?

Agreed. But you'll notice that almost everyone who posted here is considering ethics as something that can change on a whim. Which is, of course, what most of this thread is all about -- how can you hold to the concept of ethics, then turn around and change them whenever the situation changes?

And worse, if you hold that ethics is ...ahh, convertible, ...then how can we denounce others who do the same thing?

Anyway, what choice did we have but to go to war? There isn't one person alive who would tell you that we had a choice in the matter.

No choice? What about NOT going to war? That's a choice that conforms to the high falutin' ideals that we hold as a freakin' society, ain't it?

Yeah, we had a choice ...Hitler did nothing to us, and didn't directly threaten the USA in any way. Oh, yeah, sure, there were and are people who would claim to be able to read the future, but ....do we believe always people who make that claim?

'Course we also had another choice ....we could have tried talkin' him to death about ethics! Or maybe just into a coma?

We were attacked, and had to retaliate.

Hmm, on the playgrounds of America, we teach little kids that retaliation is not ethical. And yet, when we get older, we can just change those ethics whenever we want? See? I don't think that's ethical, do you?

Once in, there was no way to avoid the conflict in Europe.

Just because the Japanese attacked us and we allied with Germany, is no sign that we should have attacked German forces in Europe. I don't see how the two are connected at all.

And also, if we hold ethics of basic non-violence, why didn't we just defend ourselves against another Japanese attack instead of retaliating? Self-defense is a much better justification of negating ethics than going on the attack, isn't it?

Don't hold the flawed ideals of one self-proclaimed liberal to be the mantra for the rest of us.

I'm trying not to, but you've used my examples to repudiate something that was only an example ...of convertible ethics. And your post has shown that you, also, hold ethics as a convertible ideal that you can change whenever you want to. I don't think those are real ethics ...there's just bullshit from my perspective, nothing but high-falutin' talk.

But please remember, this isn't about those examples, it's about the ideals of ethics that we claim to hold dear, yet flaunt whenever the mood strikes us. And it's not about the war in Iraq, or WW II or anything else, it's about the ethics we hold.

Are ethical standards really any good to anyone?

Baron Max

 

[spidergoat]

10 years later, Island B has imploded when they had no one left to fight so they formed two groups and attacked each other, killing everyone there in an orgy of blood. Island A rebuilt itself without comprimising it's ethical standards and took over Island B, discovering a previously unidentified vein of valuable mineral ores, which they sold to become rich.