More Morality
Morality is a spectrum from absolute conformity through the thinking and questioning but not harming range down to the sociopaths who have no concern for the wellbeing of anyone but themselves.
I suppose, in the name of completeness, I have to state that I believe that individuals will move around on the spectrum to different degrees, and in different ways, and not necessarily be consistent over varying facets of their lives. Okay, done.
There are implications of hypocrisy, dishonesty and fakeness at the high conformity end of the spectrum. Think fanatics. Religious, political - whatever field of extremism, there are associations of exploitation, ignorance and bigotry. The psychology behind that is complex and open to subjective interpretation. In the name of simplicity, I'm not going to do analysis of these factors more than I can help, but instead asterisk out my reflexive skepticism.
High level conformists accept* inherited codes of morals as they stand. Inevitably, some degree of interpretation will occur, but heirachy deference is strong in the conformist mind-set, so teaching and reinforcement and correction help to maintain code integrity**.
Well intentioned thinkers examine the rules to try to discern where improvements can be made. Harm aversion is the most powerful motivation for rule-examination, but inconvenience minimization is a more common reason for this group to experiment with rule modification.
Some rule adjusters are more personal convenience oriented, some are driven by a desire for increased social justice etc. Not all rule adjusters are particularly getting it right or even agreeing on what's fair, so there is much opportunity for debate and friction among this group, as well as between them and the other broad groupings.
The group I call sociopaths care little, if at all, about the effect their transgressions against the rules have on others. As long as they can get away with non-adherence, they will do whatever benefits them. I notice that these sections of the population can exist as individuals in isolation or as sub-groups with their own tribal codes... "Honour among thieves" illustrates.
The idea that people can be viewed as 'not us' and be discriminated against works as an abstract concept, but on a one-to one basis, we find that we are much too similar. If our tribal code decrees that the 'not us' be harmed, then we have to steel ourselves to do it by coming up with reasons that the 'not us' are not the same as we are. Contempt and cruelty are defence against compassion. Look to historical examples of how different sections of humanity have been stereotyped and demonised and impugned and derided for a 'how-to' guide on preparing yourself to massacre 'not us' and avoid or survive the guilt. After all, being able to do so is a survival advantage.
Rather disturbingly, the sociopathic end of the spectrum runs right back into the rigid conformity folk, per sharp delineation between adherents to a particular code and non-adherents. People outside the tribe are often seen as not being subject to all or any of the protections of the rules.
In more chaotic systems, a couple of generations of lawlessness sees children growing up without being aware of societal rules except as some arbitrary and punitive thing imposed by 'not us'. In that there is freedom in our society for people to live lawlessly, we have become the barbarians at our own gates.
Having written this down, I see more clearly that the questioning thinking harm minimisers have quite a job, balancing the rest. It disturbs me to see that the crooks and the politicians really are cheek-by jowl on the moral spectrum. Fanaticism and certitude lend themselves to successful election campaigns far more than does a platform of 'cautious adjustment of existing rules for increased convenience, efficiency and fairness without increased harm'.
Utilitarianism also works as an abstract concept, as far as I can figure. Fair distribution of resources applied to a large group will not be compassionate to outliers. Again, morality feels different on different scales. Looking at the 'big picture' and adhering to the applicable standard is callous. Catering compassionatly to unfortunate individuals soaks up resources. Sociopaths who exploit compassion break the system.
Individual responsibility = Morality?
Social structure = Rules?
So problems occur when people in power try to make their Morality into society's Rules, and when individuals ignore society's Rules when codifying their Morality.
I need to think more about this....
I suppose, in the name of completeness, I have to state that I believe that individuals will move around on the spectrum to different degrees, and in different ways, and not necessarily be consistent over varying facets of their lives. Okay, done.
There are implications of hypocrisy, dishonesty and fakeness at the high conformity end of the spectrum. Think fanatics. Religious, political - whatever field of extremism, there are associations of exploitation, ignorance and bigotry. The psychology behind that is complex and open to subjective interpretation. In the name of simplicity, I'm not going to do analysis of these factors more than I can help, but instead asterisk out my reflexive skepticism.
High level conformists accept* inherited codes of morals as they stand. Inevitably, some degree of interpretation will occur, but heirachy deference is strong in the conformist mind-set, so teaching and reinforcement and correction help to maintain code integrity**.
Well intentioned thinkers examine the rules to try to discern where improvements can be made. Harm aversion is the most powerful motivation for rule-examination, but inconvenience minimization is a more common reason for this group to experiment with rule modification.
Some rule adjusters are more personal convenience oriented, some are driven by a desire for increased social justice etc. Not all rule adjusters are particularly getting it right or even agreeing on what's fair, so there is much opportunity for debate and friction among this group, as well as between them and the other broad groupings.
The group I call sociopaths care little, if at all, about the effect their transgressions against the rules have on others. As long as they can get away with non-adherence, they will do whatever benefits them. I notice that these sections of the population can exist as individuals in isolation or as sub-groups with their own tribal codes... "Honour among thieves" illustrates.
The idea that people can be viewed as 'not us' and be discriminated against works as an abstract concept, but on a one-to one basis, we find that we are much too similar. If our tribal code decrees that the 'not us' be harmed, then we have to steel ourselves to do it by coming up with reasons that the 'not us' are not the same as we are. Contempt and cruelty are defence against compassion. Look to historical examples of how different sections of humanity have been stereotyped and demonised and impugned and derided for a 'how-to' guide on preparing yourself to massacre 'not us' and avoid or survive the guilt. After all, being able to do so is a survival advantage.
Rather disturbingly, the sociopathic end of the spectrum runs right back into the rigid conformity folk, per sharp delineation between adherents to a particular code and non-adherents. People outside the tribe are often seen as not being subject to all or any of the protections of the rules.
In more chaotic systems, a couple of generations of lawlessness sees children growing up without being aware of societal rules except as some arbitrary and punitive thing imposed by 'not us'. In that there is freedom in our society for people to live lawlessly, we have become the barbarians at our own gates.
Having written this down, I see more clearly that the questioning thinking harm minimisers have quite a job, balancing the rest. It disturbs me to see that the crooks and the politicians really are cheek-by jowl on the moral spectrum. Fanaticism and certitude lend themselves to successful election campaigns far more than does a platform of 'cautious adjustment of existing rules for increased convenience, efficiency and fairness without increased harm'.
Utilitarianism also works as an abstract concept, as far as I can figure. Fair distribution of resources applied to a large group will not be compassionate to outliers. Again, morality feels different on different scales. Looking at the 'big picture' and adhering to the applicable standard is callous. Catering compassionatly to unfortunate individuals soaks up resources. Sociopaths who exploit compassion break the system.
Individual responsibility = Morality?
Social structure = Rules?
So problems occur when people in power try to make their Morality into society's Rules, and when individuals ignore society's Rules when codifying their Morality.
I need to think more about this....
posted by Jac | 11:56 am
2 Comments:
In a discussion I was in recently it was generally agreed that the word 'ethics' tends to refer to accepted group standards (e.g. 'work ethics') so it may fit with your notion of rules. On the other hand we agreed that 'morals' tends to refer to the personal dimension (of course these still relate to how one conducts relationships with others so it too is group oriented as well). Both 'moral' and 'ethic' are the same word drawn from different source languages but over time we have given then different nuances.
Am I right in thinking you say that politicians tend to wards the fanatical? I want to challenge that somewhat. Of course any person who is politically active can be considered more extreme than someone who is non-active. On the other hand in a competitive elective form of government like ours there are strong 'centripetal' forces that make every successful party conform to a consensus drawn (ultimately) from the electorate. Those then who lament at the pragmatic vote-winning behaviour of major parties may in fact be asking for "just a tiny bit more fananticism" (except we use words like 'committed' or 'passionate' or 'idealistic' rather than saying 'fanatical'). Am I way off on a tangent here?
Ethics = culturally agreed rules? Morals = personal rules? Hmm. Okay.
Regarding fanaticism, I was referring to extremists from any field. Religious and political are just more obvious examples of areas in which fanaticism can arise and wreak particularly spectacular havoc.
As for entreating voters to be 'more fanatical', yes. But balance is key, as always.
Post a Comment
<< Home