From: amnell@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Marko Amnell)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Moral propagationism
Date: 27 Sep 92 10:03:31 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <lc9ssnINNr88@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM
(Todd Hoff) writes:

>In article 27730@klaava.Helsinki.FI, amnell@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Marko Amnell) writes:
>>In article <lc9fjeINNr88@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM
>>(Todd Hoff) writes:
>>
>>I don't think it's a question of me deciding for anyone else what is or
>>is not evil.  A fairly constant morality has been a vital part of human
>>societies.  
>
>Let's start  a list of that part of morality that has been fairly
>constant in vital human societies. I'll let you start.

Obviously, one would start with the most heinous crimes, murder, rape and
so on.  The proviso was meant to allow for some variation at the fringes
of morality, where it fuses with the juridical.

>>To accept to live in a society is to accept the moral code.
>>
>Is this part of a social contract that I somehow failed to sign? I don't
>"accept" the moral code of society, I act within its boundries for
>two reasons: 1) I agree with it 2) I don't think the punishment is worth
>the protest. When enough people view societies moral code as wrong then groups 
>will work to change societies moral code. 

You're free to do as your wish, of course.  If, however, you do decide
to 'protest', the society has built-in mechanisms to stop transgressors
from destroying it.  In the case of a revolution, as you note, a majority
of the people reject the code of behaviour and bring down the status quo.

It is interesting how stable a code of behaviour can be.  When I
returned to Finland a few years ago I was surprised to find that
virtually no one crossed the street against the light, even when
there were no cars in sight.  I 'transgressed' the 'moral code' :) and
was even fined a couple of times.  Now people are beginning to cross
the streets against the light.  I reckon that the police are no longer
actively seeking to stop jaywalkers.  But it is surprising that the 
majority of Finns still wait for the light to turn green, even if they
are obviously late for work.  They will stomp their feet and grimace,
but will not cross the against the light.  A good way to spot a
foreigner in Helsinki is still to watch how they cross the street...

>>No, not really.  If such an extremely unlikely situation were ever to take
>>place, I would have no choice but to sacrifice one person so that
>>millions could live.  I expect that any sane person would do the same.
>>
>The likeliness of the situation is not the point. You described a situation
>which you named as evil, yet you are willing to commit the same evil. Both sides
>are likely to say they are sane. What of good and evil now? A matter of
>perspective? 

Naturally, I would deny that my action was 'the same evil' because of
the overwhelming moral compulsion of the context.  That the Nazi says
that he is right only shows that he is not sane.  How do we decide who
is right?  This, I think you would agree, is the crux of the issue.  If
it is merely a question of mob rule, if the Nazi actually _is_ right
when he lives in a society in which the 'moral code' says so, then the
moral relativist is right.  As someone who believes in a universal
morality, what I must say is the the whole German society was 'insane',
that the its moral fabric was perverted by the decadence of Weimar rule and
Nazi power.  I think these are complex historical questions.  Each
case of a perverted society needs to be looked at in its own terms, the
society must untangle the roots of its decay, as the Germans are still
doing.  There are no easy answers:  "How could it happen in the land of
Goethe and Beethoven?" and so on.  It is amazing that the whole thing
seems to be starting again in Eastern Germany.

>> One must take care not to allow oneself to abstract away the concreteness of 
>> ethics. 
>
>This is obviously a meta-rule of yours that must
>have a lot of thought behind it. Why do you say this?

'Fair question.  I don't like abstract ethics as it is often practiced
in the Universities.  Gaita's book BTW is not such stuff, it is an
authentic effort to understand the deep significance of such things
as remorse, guilt, etc.  I think that ethics is very hard to do well,
it's not an Academic subject like Chemistry.  There are no 'ethics
experts' that companies can hire.  The key thing is to try to keep in
mind what we're talking about -- real people like you and me faced
with agonizing decisions, unbearable suffering, and on the brighter
side, joy and happiness.  To talk even only in terms of 'human rights'
as eg. the UN does, is, in my opinion, to take something away from
the sacredness of being human.  That, of course, is why I quoted the
passage from the ghetto diary -- to remind all of us of what we're
really discussing, not abstract things like 'moral systems', but the
lives of real people.

-- 
Marko Amnell
amnell@klaava.helsinki.fi
Graduate Student in Philosophy