And my point is, maybe we can share an overarching moral consensus, and yet still disagree about the method of implementing that moral consensus.
On Jan 29, 2:55 pm, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry if I misinterpreted you, Craig. > > On one level, morals/ethics can be seen as an aspect of society. On > another (deeper?) level, moral principles form the framework for > societies. A society in which there is no general, overarching moral > consensus has problems. > > Having written the previous three sentences, I've been looking at them > for ten minutes and realising that it's more complex than that. I need > to think about it a bit. There's a nexus of issues here; society and > the ways we structure our dealings with each other, morals/ethics, > values, tolerance, pluralism, individuality and commonality. But I > haven't got the time or concentration for that this evening. As Arnie > said, I'll be back! :-) > > Francis > > On 29 Jan., 20:11, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Francis, > > I think you missed my point. My examples were off hand, and only an > > attempt to explain what I meant by overlapping moralities. How this > > was not an ethical issue, but a pragmatic issue. If I knew you were > > going to tear my example apart rather than get the drift of what I was > > saying I would have been much more careful in the example I choose. I > > am hoping that we can come to a better understanding of what he issues > > are here, and avoid the rhetoric that is typically associated in a > > discussion such as this. Is there a chance? > > > On Jan 29, 10:38 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I think you're taking some shaky steps and big jumps here, Craig. > > > > Firstly, I would understand the basis of ethics to be the education of > > > all the individuals in a society to the level where they would act > > > according to an internalised, conscious morality (I know, very Kantian > > > that) and that in such a society secondary or tertiary external moral > > > derivatives like, "all should be provided for" would be more or less > > > self-evident statements. (Personally, even at this level, I would > > > prefer working on the basis of the implications flowing from such > > > statements as, "The dignity of the human being is sacrosanct" - > > > Article 2 of the German Federal Constitution.) > > > > Secondly, the statement, "A socialist may say that it is immoral if > > > someone isn't provided for, so we should just give it to them," is a > > > parody of any socialist thinking worth mentioning. Personally, I would > > > argue that the phrase from the old curmudgeon of the British Museum > > > expresses it much better, "from each according to his abilities, to > > > each according to his needs." > > > > Thirdly, I would argue that if in the USA, as a primary example of > > > capitalism in the world today, millions suffer from abject poverty, > > > then the capitalist system obviously has problems fulfilling the "goal > > > that all should be provided for." > > > > Francis > > > > On 29 Jan., 16:54, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Orn, > > > > In fact I don't think this is about ethics. I think it is more > > > > accidental. That was my initial point. I think that our concerns > > > > overlap, we just so happen to disagree over the better way for our > > > > moral decisions to be played out. For example, maybe our goal is that > > > > all are provided for. A socialist may say that it is immoral if > > > > someone isn't provided for, so we should just give it to them. A > > > > capitalist may say, I agree, it is immoral if someone isn't provided > > > > for. However if we just give it to them, that will destroy the > > > > incentive that moves our society, if that incentive is destroyed then > > > > no one will be provided for, and that would be immoral. In other > > > > words, both sides want all provided for, they just disagree over the > > > > best approach at getting the job done. > > > > > On Jan 29, 8:48 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Fran, I find that you have pointed to the heart of the matter…ethics. > > > > > As far as I see it, if different people have different ethics, it is > > > > > probable they will espouse differing economic and/or social systems > > > > > based upon their personal point of view. This seems so obvious. > > > > > > Many here have studied the subject, formally and informally. And, of > > > > > course, each person has an opinion. For me, some sort of empathetical > > > > > or at least sympathetic analysis of how differing ethoses function > > > > > would be appreciated. And, yes, even in this simple request, my > > > > > personal ethos/morality shines through. > > > > > > I have a few ideas on how to progress, however I’ll wait and see if > > > > > those better versed in the topic can guide us towards a more fruitful > > > > > discussion. > > > > > > On Jan 29, 12:40 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Craig, I don't know if I could summarise any discussion here on the > > > > > > "Eye", where the number of posts has topped 100 - as usual, the > > > > > > discussion meanders, goes off the point, comes back to it, spawns > > > > > > side > > > > > > discussions (eg. Belgium), etc. > > > > > > > Still, having followed and contributed, a couple of things have > > > > > > become > > > > > > clearer for me. Firstly, we should be clear about what we are > > > > > > talking, > > > > > > and refrain from attacking demonised misrepresented parodies of > > > > > > positions with which we tend not to agree, at least if our goal is > > > > > > to > > > > > > achieve a little more wisdom rather than simply win arguments. > > > > > > > Secondly, I personally would give myself the warning to be wary of > > > > > > solutions which make exaggerated statements about the benefits of > > > > > > the > > > > > > systems they propose, whether expressed in the benign regulation of > > > > > > an > > > > > > Invisible Hand, or in the end of alienation and the withering away > > > > > > of > > > > > > the state. > > > > > > > Most importantly, for me at least, many contributions (including > > > > > > your > > > > > > own appeal to charity) seem to point to some kind of primacy of the > > > > > > "ethical" in the organisation of human societies, be it within a > > > > > > "capitalist" or a "socialist" framework. This point came home to me > > > > > > after reading the thought-provoking article by Howard A. Doughty > > > > > > (and > > > > > > doesn't he live up to his name! :-)) in the link provided by Don. Of > > > > > > course, this insight raises many more questions: how do we achieve > > > > > > more consciousness of the primacy of moral values in > > > > > > society/markets/ > > > > > > public life, how do we educate for real morality in society, and, > > > > > > most > > > > > > fundamtentally, what do we really mean by morality and what systems > > > > > > of > > > > > > morality can we propose for our complex, splintered, internetworked, > > > > > > interdependent, open/closed contemporary societies? > > > > > > > What a wriggling can of worms! Back to Plato, Aristotle and all the > > > > > > others ... ;-) > > > > > > Francis > > > > > > > On 29 Jan., 03:59, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Found this little Gem on the net. Not done reading it yet but > > > > > > > thought > > > > > > > I would share it. Very interesting. > > > > > > > >http://www.innovation.cc/book-reviews/demonizing.htm > > > > > > > > dj > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 7:20 PM, Kierkecraig > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I haven't been able to catch up with this thread, but I don't > > > > > > > > want to > > > > > > > > abandon it either because when I left it appeared that I was > > > > > > > > the sole > > > > > > > > defender of capitalism. So in order to get back on track, can > > > > > > > > someone > > > > > > > > summarize what the issues are that are being covered in this > > > > > > > > thread. > > > > > > > > I know the general topic is capitalism vs. socialism, with some > > > > > > > > arguing for a hybrid of the two. What's really the fundamental > > > > > > > > argument though? Using the principle of charity with both > > > > > > > > theories, > > > > > > > > how would we characterize the desired goals of capitalism and > > > > > > > > socialism. Lets begin by ignoring the rhetoric associated with > > > > > > > > each > > > > > > > > side, and begin by placing them each in their own light as > > > > > > > > charitably > > > > > > > > as possible. What is it that capitalism claims is its goal? > > > > > > > > What is > > > > > > > > it that socialism claims is its goal? What is it that a hybrid > > > > > > > > system > > > > > > > > claims is its goal? I have a hunch that they will all cover > > > > > > > > some > > > > > > > > common ground as to what they hope to obtain. The argument will > > > > > > > > probably be whether that system can really obtain the goals it > > > > > > > > claims > > > > > > > > to espouse. Any takers?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
