It's good! But, maybe it ain't right? (morals, America, pagan)

[coberst]

It’s good! But, maybe it an’t right?

I suspect that almost all of us would behave uniformly when encountering face-to-face with another person’s misfortune—we would all feel instant sympathy. We are born with ‘sympathetic vibrations’--we often automatically tear-up in all the same situations. However there seems to be two moral concepts that determine many social-political situations.

“The two main concepts of ethics are those of the right and the good; the concept of a morally worthy person is, I believe, derived from them.” This quote and any others are from “A Theory of Justice” by John Rawls.

It appears that both philosophy and common sense distinguish between the concepts ‘right’ and ‘good’. The interrelationship of these two concepts in many minds will determine what is considered to be ethical/moral behavior. Most citizens in a just society consider that rights “are taken for granted and the rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interests.” The Constitution of the United States defines the rights of all citizens, which are considered to be sacrosanct (sacred or holy).

Many consider that the “most rational conception of justice is utilitarian…a society is properly arranged when its institutions maximize the net balance of satisfaction…It is natural to think that rationality is maximizing something and that in morals it must be maximizing the good.”

Some advocates of utilitarianism believe that rights have a secondary validity from the fact that “under the conditions of civilized society there is a great social utility in following them [rights] for the most part and in permitting violations only under exceptional circumstances.” The good, for society, is the satisfaction of rational desire. The right is that which maximizes the good; some advocates of utilitarianism account for rights as being a socially useful consideration.

Captain Dave will under no circumstance torture a prisoner. Captain Jim will torture a prisoner when he considers such action will save the lives of his platoon.

Some utilitarians consider the rights enunciated in the constitution are a useful means to fortify the good. Captain Jim, while recognizing the rights in the Constitution, considers these rights are valid and useful but only because they promote the good. The rights defined in the Constitution can be violated but only in the name of the common good.

Captain Dave may very well be an advocate of utilitarianism but he considers that right is different in kind from good and right cannot be forfeit to good under any condition.

Do you think that most people in your country are like Captain Jim (would torture under certain circumstances) or like Captain Dave (would not torture under any condition)? I think they are more like Jim in the US.

[Terrywoodenpic]

Originally Posted by coberst

Do you think that most people in your country are like Captain Jim (would torture under certain circumstances) or like Captain Dave (would not torture under any condition)? I think they are more like Jim in the US.

Torture is a middle ages concept. not only is it wrong and internationally illegal.
But it rarely proves any thing.
A person under torture can be made to say and admit to anything at all.

In the Uk Evidence abtained under torture anywhere in the world is inadmissable.
As is evidence linked to it.

There is not the slightest wish for the use of torture in the UK

[Booko]

Originally Posted by coberst

Do you think that most people in your country are like Captain Jim (would torture under certain circumstances) or like Captain Dave (would not torture under any condition)? I think they are more like Jim in the US.

If so many in this country were like Captain Jim, there would have been no outcry over Abu Ghraib.

Most Americans are pretty much in the dark over what's going on. That doesn't mean they would approve of it they knew.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Booko

If so many in this country were like Captain Jim, there would have been no outcry over Abu Ghraib.

Most Americans are pretty much in the dark over what's going on. That doesn't mean they would approve of it they knew.

Honestly, I think that we as a nation are willfully ignorant about what's going on in our name. It may be true that we don't really know, but we've heard enough rumours and leaks to warrant demanding to know. But we don't. We maintain our ignorance so that we don't have to take on the moral responsibility that comes with knowing.

As for Captain Jim and Captain Dave, it is overly simplistic to ask which one Americans are more like. And coberst what makes you think that the answer is different for Americans than for the rest of the world? Each one of us contains both Captain Jim and Captain Dave within us. And while things like genes and environmental upbringing will heavily influence which one gets expressed, when it comes down to it, when the lives of those you love and who count on you are on the line, you do not know what lengths you'll go to to save them. Not because you're evil. Not because you like torture. But because of desperation, fear, a sense of responsibility and duty, and because when it comes down to it it is human nature to choose loved ones and kinsmen over strangers, despite our highest aspirations. Anyone who says that they are certain that they would never torture. Anyone who has no compassion for Captain Jim, who can draw a line between him and them saying "him bad, me good", that person scares me. Because that person is not in touch with their own capacity towards violence, and if you haven't examined it then you really don't know what you're capbable of.

[coberst]

lilithu

Much of what you say is right on the mark. Nevertheless these matters require consideration and discussion.

[kateyes]

posted by coberst

Captain Dave will under no circumstance torture a prisoner. Captain Jim will torture a prisoner when he considers such action will save the lives of his platoon.

Some utilitarians consider the rights enunciated in the constitution are a useful means to fortify the good. Captain Jim, while recognizing the rights in the Constitution, considers these rights are valid and useful but only because they promote the good. The rights defined in the Constitution can be violated but only in the name of the common good.

Captain Dave may very well be an advocate of utilitarianism but he considers that right is different in kind from good and right cannot be forfeit to good under any condition.

Do you think that most people in your country are like Captain Jim (would torture under certain circumstances) or like Captain Dave (would not torture under any condition)? I think they are more like Jim in the US.

I am not big on the philosophy of Utilitarianism-- The basic principle of this is: "that which brings about the greatest happiness of the greatest number is good." So if a group of 5 housemates decides the quickest and easiest way to get rid of a disgusting slob of a 6th room-mate is to drown him and bury him in the garden, this philosophy would say that is right/good. But it isn't. We all know it is wrong to murder regardless of how many people are happy with the result. This is a bit like that old saying--"the end justifies the means"--but again I think we would all agree in principle that torture is wrong regardless of the end results. There are thousands of scenarios we could come up with but the simple fact remains. There are issues and actions that are right and wrong---and wrong actions cannot be justified in the name of greater good.

[coberst]

kateyes says--"We all know it is wrong to murder"

I suspect every country in the world has a law against murder. How does everyone feel about killing?

[Booko]

Originally Posted by lilithu

Honestly, I think that we as a nation are willfully ignorant about what's going on in our name. It may be true that we don't really know, but we've heard enough rumours and leaks to warrant demanding to know. But we don't. We maintain our ignorance so that we don't have to take on the moral responsibility that comes with knowing.

No, I think the propaganda is just very good, and for someone that is pressed for time and who doesn't see how foreign affairs is relevant to their lives, it seems a better use of one's time to do something with the kids.

The information is out there, but you have to have some idea it might be worth looking for, that is, assuming you have the means.

As for Captain Jim and Captain Dave, it is overly simplistic to ask which one Americans are more like. And coberst what makes you think that the answer is different for Americans than for the rest of the world?

Indeed. Ignorance of the world is hardly reserved to Americans. If it were, I wouldn't hear questions like "How many guns do you have?" and "Where do you ride your horse?" and "What do you mean you can't visit me -- you live in a mansion, don't you?"

People have some pretty strange ideas about what life is like here.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by coberst

I suspect every country in the world has a law against murder. How does everyone feel about killing?

Aye, there's the rub.

There are very few people indeed who say that killing is categorically wrong; usually we say that it's permissible under certain circumstances, and then we argue over what those circumstances are.

My denomination is currently struggling with the question of "just war" versus pacificism. We've had many notable pacificists within our ranks and lift up people like Gandhi as role models, yet historically we have supported certain wars because we felt the cause was just. And by "supported" I don't just mean we condoned it, many Unitarians actively encouraged the country towards these wars and fought in these wars.

I myself am not a pacificist because I can't get over the idea of not doing everything possible to stop the halocaust, including violence. Yet we've had Bosnia and Rwanda and now Darfur and my non-pacificism has done nothing to stop these genocides. Instead, we send our youth to destroy the people of Iraq, based on the argument that the cause is "just." Perhaps I should be a pacificist. Perhaps if we said that the option of violence is truly off the table - not an option - then we would actually seriously look into the alternatives.

[coberst]

lilithu says--"Perhaps I should be a pacificist. Perhaps if we said that the option of violence is truly off the table - not an option - then we would actually seriously look into the alternatives."

Now there is a very good idea worthy of serious discourse! I am not advocating non violence now but it is well worthy of consideration.

Perhaps you would like to construct a good thread that would facilitate that discussion?