“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” —Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals
In my last posting on the "Capitalism" thread, I expressed the need to think a bit about the issues the thread had led to in the area of morality, issues which Orn has very usefully moved into this (relatively) new thread. In the past few days I've been doing that bit of thinking and coming to the conclusion that it would probably take a book to really deal with them - something I don't see myself writing any time in the near future! But then, Neil and Molly made some useful comments about the re-invention of the wheel and I realised that Kant's Categorical Imperative actually expresses my position pretty completely (or, more realistically, that I've been an adherent of the Kantian position ever since I became acquainted with it during my study of philosophy nearly thirty years ago). The beauty of the Categorical Imperative is that it offers the possibility of overcoming the dichotomy between general norms and relativism. While Kant argues that we should be able to universalise our choices if we want to morally defend them, it still leaves open, indeed demands, examination of the individual circumstances determining our choice before making that choice. What is right in one situation may not be right in another. At the same time, it presupposes that the individual choosing has some kind of freedom in making that choice and implies that the individual choosing then takes responsibility for the choice made. The ideal expressed in the Categorical Imperative is a very high one and implies the ability to to reflect on one's situation as well as demanding a fair proportion of self-knowledge and honesty. If we regard it as desirable that a society should be inspired by moral principles, then this implies that a society should be consciously educating with the goal of increasing such values as reflection, self- knowledge and honesty. This, I think, is the kind of thing involved in the concept of Paideia (you see, Orn, I haven't forgotten :-)). A practical idea for schooling in this area was proposed by Mortimer Adler twenty years ago and offers some good ideas (even if my philosophical position otherwise differs considerably from Adler's). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paideia_Proposal I do, of course, realise that such a fundamental starting point for morals is far removed from the actuality of our society and is something in practical life we may continually fall short of. Notwithstanding, it seems to me to be a goal worth continually striving for. A starting point might be to examine our societal values and role models with regard to their moral value. One of the major problems in our modern societies, it seems to me, is the generally accepted banishment of morality to the "private" realm and a reluctance to demand its consequences in the public area (and by this, I don't just mean the conventional political, although the [impossible] hopes and aspirations invested in Obama worldwide suggest some kind of common yearning for change here). Business, in particular, seems to have abandoned fundamental moral positions, substituting some kind of bastard corrupt notion of "ethics". An example which strikes me here are the managers of asset stripping organisations who justify their destruction of of viable, mostly profitable businesses with their ethical duty to maximise shareholder value, at the cost, often, of thousands of jobs and untold misery. They justify themselves with the arguments that their individual actions are always legal and ethical within the remit for which they have contractually obligated themselves. Not to act the way they have done, they argue, would be to fail in their duties to those who are paying them. This line of argument reminds me of the self- justifications offered by those who organised and carried through the Holocaust at Nurenberg. The problem is that we are all frequently caught up in such mechanisms. How many of us know, for example, how the private pension funds on which we are depending, at least in part, for security in our old-age (insofar as they have survived the crash) have really been investing our money? Or what the consequences are? Francis On 29 Jan., 21:04, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > In a different thread, fran suggested an exploration of morality in > the context of economics and society. Rather than rephrase him, here > are his words: > > “…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 ... ;-)” – fran > > I agreed and wish to explore the area…what we mean by morality, how to > educate for it etc. My responding post: > > “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. “ – orn > > So, since the other topic continues to appear to include > contradictions to this notion, I’m starting a new one to address it > for those who wish to explore rather than reject. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
