1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Meta-Ethics: Ideas and Discussion

Discussion in 'Chit Chat' started by Christiaan, Jul 17, 2015.

  1. Christiaan

    Christiaan Guest

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2012
    Messages:
    745
    Likes Received:
    1
    Just as a cautionary note, to follow is an attempt to discuss ethics in a systematic manner. I am long-winded, but I am really proposing what I think is a relatively novel idea, here, so there is really no condensed version to speak of. You will be lost, in this conversation, if you do not at least skim what is written, here.

    I have always admired the Jungian system of archetypes and metaphors, since they really give us something that we can identify with and understand. In spite of the faults in psychoanalytic methods of discourse, the "human element" is present, in such a system, in a manner that is not as present in others.

    Perhaps any discussion, regarding an abstract topic like morality, must be approached, foremost, by substantively defining it. The difficulty that arises from a failure to do so is that many divergent concepts can become jumbled-together--conflated--into one, thereby causing complications to arise in attempts to discuss it. In the case of the topics associated with morality, such questions are called "meta-ethics."

    In an attempt to deobfuscate, illuminate and disentangle the matter, I am going to make a radical meta-ethical proposition: the topics that we regard as being "morality" are really altogether different and distinct topics. It is, as a matter of fact, potentially counter-productive to even have them in the same discussion. Nevertheless, they do tend to appear often enough in the same discussions, so perhaps we can borrow from the Jungian models of personality to aid in the goal of arriving upon a more clear understanding of the matter. I will first delineate (I love using these pretentious terms) what moral concepts are most prevalent in normative ethics.

    For a more clear set of definitions, refer to Chapter 2 of Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases, Seventh Edition, by Manuel G. Velasquez

    1) Utilitarianism, which is the concept that moral "right and wrong" is defined by the outcomes of one's behavior. It is an attractive model, but it leads to such situations as, if you were likely to prevent two new HIV infections by murdering a man who suffered from HIV, would it then be moral for you to murder this person? Such controversial situations is one of several reasons that it is potentially risky to lean on only one meta-ethical assumption.

    2) Rights and duties, on the other hand, would answer the above moral dilemma by stating that the man, in question, has a right to live. Although that person might be a danger to others, that person has the same rights, under the "social contract," as yourself.

    3) Justice and fairness basically comes down to reciprocity. Our minds are naturally upset and disturbed by imbalance, and we simply don't feel right if one thing is not like the other thing. We flee from music that is strongly atonal, which is good music but music that is good only because it succeeds in inspriring feelings of unwellness, terror, and the feeling that "something is not right." It is used all the time to create suspense in movies, and the reason it is so effective at causing us such feelings comes down to our inherent aversion to imbalance, in nature. Inequality is upsetting to us. Injustice is upsetting to us.

    4) Care is, on the surface, more selfish, but it could also be more instrumental for promoting pro-social behavior. Are your choices upsetting to others? Do those actions cause others to dislike you or to reject you socially? Does the sight of another person's suffering, as a result of your behavior, bother you? How do your friends, neighbors and community see you? The question is, do you LIKE the other person enough to care about how that person feels?

    If we use these as our metaethical foundations, then, we could borrow from Jungian psychology, and we could boil this down to 16 "moral personality types." In the interest of simplicity, I will create a similar system of designations.

    Utilitarianism: U for positive, R for negative, as in "Regardless of the consequences."

    Rights and Duties: I as in "rIghts," W as in "Wrongs." To clarify, "This will have better outcomes, even though it is Wrong."

    Fairness and justice: F as in "Fair," N as in "Not fair."

    Care: C as in "Care," D as in "Don't care."

    U -- R
    I -- W
    F -- N
    C -- D

    Therefore, if we were to lump all of the meta-ethical dimensions together, the two most obvious "moral personality types" are:

    UIFC - The Good Guy.
    RWND - The Villain

    However, this leaves FOURTEEN MORE TO COVER!!!! From these, we can derive four "friends" of "The Good Guy," four other "Enemies," besides "The Villain," and six that are relatively unaligned.

    First, I will attempt to establish names for variations upon the Good Guy, which means "moral personality types" of which THREE are on the "good side."

    FOUR FRIENDS

    RIFC - Dudley Do-Right: this is an otherwise good person, who doesn't really ponder the consequences of his or her actions. Although this person is generally well-meaning, this person might sometimes cause greater harm than good. This person doesn't mean to be a jerk, but this person's lack of moral adaptability makes that person occasionally difficult to manage. On the other hand, this can be a very good person in the sense that this person will never ever attempt to rationalize immoral behavior.

    UWFC - Robin Hood: this person can do a lot of good, but beware of this person's lack of respect for the social contract. This rebel uses the social contract as toilet-paper. He is otherwise a decent fellow who goes into the world armed with empathy, compassion, an awareness of the consequences of his actions, and a profound respect for justice and equality.

    UINC - The Pragmatist: this person can actually have, in some situations, greater flexibility. This person is not hindered by problems like unfairness or some people being left out of decision-making, but that person stays focused on the ultimate outcome of making everybody happy and satisfying everybody's "God-given" rights. A criticism of this person's behavior is that the result can end up lopsided, causing frustration regarding the fairness of the distribution. Good person; not such good material for entering politics.

    UIFD - The Logician: this person will always do the right thing, regardless of how it makes others feel. This person can have advantages, ethically: this person is immune to criticism, and you can count on this person to tell you the truth when "you have a right to know" bad news. This person's Vulcan-like logical outlook is, while occasionally troublesome, generally the makings of a decent human being.

    That gets us down to TEN MORE TYPES, starting with the enemies, and then I'll cover the six remaining neutrals.

    FOUR ENEMIES

    UWND - The Rationalizer: this ally of the villain is deadly evil. This person will go to any length to argue how destructive and immoral conduct, which grossly violates the rights of others and demonstrates terrible lack of empathy, somehow has a better outcome. In fact, Dudley Do-Right's argument is that anybody who ponders the world in terms of consequences is at risk of rationalizing behavior that is really evil.

    RIND - The Lawyer: this person simply exploits the social contract. This person may serve as a judge in the court of an unjust and callus ruler. The Lawyer is always the most eager to call for the hanging of well-meaning outlaws, since the Lawyer uses the law to advance his evil intentions.

    RWFD - The Politician: this jerk will always exploit the consequences of misguided pragmatism, using unfair distribution as a pretext for stirring up discontent. The Populist will cause ruin to any workplace by manufacturing unhappiness regarding the distribution of responsibilities or problems with how employees are paid. This person is nothing more than a politician.

    RWNC - The Charmer: the Charmer will invariably tell you exactly what it is that you want to hear. Unlike the Politician, his manipulation is up-close and personal. He can invariably dress up disgusting and evil behavior in a way that makes it seem superficially palatable. In the end, this person only really cares about himself.

    Now, it's a little harder to divide up the six neutrals, so I will divide them into two lots. I will divide them into two lots, based on whether they are utilitarian thinkers or non-utilitarian thinkers.

    IMPERFECT UTILITARIANS:: Besides utilitarianism, these people will only have one other redeeming quality, and I will discuss their strengths and their weaknesses.

    UIND - The Law-Abider: the poor Law-Abider is, unfortunately, a social putz. He is insensitive to inequality, a bit of a hypocrite, and socially lacking. This person is sort of clueless as to how much he pisses off other people. In the end, we usually end up feeling sorry for this person, who isn't evil but just has a very distasteful and insensitive disposition. Autism much?

    UWFD - The Socialist: this person is really genuinely all about class-war, sees the way society is set up as being unfair, and is very sensitive to inequality. However, this person lacks respect for other people's rights, is generally irresponsible, and doesn't even try to make his or her ideas easy to swallow. This person is really just misguided, and it's hard to say whether we can really call this person out as evil.

    UWNC - The Softie: this is a person of the type who is often too soft-hearted to do the right thing, and this person will try so hard to keep from offending people as to end up in morally complicated situations that otherwise could have been avoided. When things blow up, this person will always cry and ask for forgiveness. We try to be tolerant for these people because they are likable, but they are incredibly frustrating.

    NON-UTILITARIANS WITH OTHER PITFALLS:: Now, I will discuss three types who, in addition to being heedless of the consequences of their behavior, are plagued by other hobgoblins.

    RWIC - The Jolly Good Fellow: the Jolly Good Fellow is only really good at satisfying people. This person doesn't really have a moral compass, but he or she just wants to fit in with the crowd, wants social harmony among his or her immediate peer-group, and doesn't really ponder more heavy moral questions. This person is nice to be around but not really all that trustworthy.

    RINC - The Blind Do-Gooder: this person does try to do the right things, but this person's blindness to how his or her actions will affect others and also the social context of his or her behavior makes this person often troublesome. We try not to lose our patience with these people, but they do often leave us sort of face-palming over this person's bumbling.

    RIFD - The Insensitive Asp: this person is egalitarian and very respectful of other people's rights, and this person sees himself or herself as upholding moral propriety. However, such people are, unlike the Logician, not attuned enough to the consequences of his or her behavior to really end up doing as much good as he or she thinks. Rather than being merely a Vulcan--who is decent but has all the approachability of an asp--the Insensitive Asp just ends up leaving others rather disgruntled, in spite of having some good intentions.

    To break these down more succinctly, I will, in a moment, juxtapose them as opposites, and I will propose how they might correspond with the system of "alignment" used in AD&D. However, in order to do this, it will be necessary for me to make arguments as to what is "good" and what is "lawful." Therefore:

    LAWFUL OR GOOD?

    Utilitarianism: this seems, at first, like a tough call, but it really comes down to "an it harm none, do as ye will." It good intentions, but by itself, it is good intentions without much of a moral compass. Therefore, it is essentially "good," but is is not lawful. It is the more "cool-headed" kind of goodness...it is the kind borne of sound principles and the desire to be a good person, however others may perceive you.

    Rights and Duties: to me, this feels like a no-brainer. You could take away the rights of gay people by writing them out of the law, and you could say it's okay because they really don't have those rights anymore. Without kindness and empathy, you could be both lawful and also cruel and unfair. It is the "right-wing" of lawfulness.

    Fairness and Justice: you can both equalitarian and cruel. Socialist states are notorious for this, since people live effectively as equals and yet have little kindness in their lives. They have rights and duties, yet they have lost sight of why. This is "lawful." It is the "left-wing" of lawfulness.

    Care: this is certainly not bound by law. It is also less of a thinking man's concept of being good. It is the kind of "good" that goes with someone being warm and compassionate. It is all about wanting love, between yourself and your fellow man.

    SO HERE IS THE BREAKDOWN

    UIFC v. RWND --- Good Guy vs. Villain == "Lawful Good," "Chaotic Evil"

    RIFC v. UWND --- Dudley Do-Right vs. The Rationalizer == "Lawful Neutral," "Chaotic Neutral." Remember, sometimes poor Dudley hurts others by being inflexible.

    UWFC v. RIND --- Robin Hood vs. The Lawyer == "Neutral Good," "Neutral Evil." Remember, although Robin Hood is a law-breaker, he is restoring balance and order to society, by his actions. In his own way, he is upholding a different concept of law, so he is not really "chaotic."

    UINC v. RWFD --- The Pragmatist v. The Politician == "Neutral Good," "Neutral Evil." The pragmatist might upset the balance of things sometimes, but this person is often just concerned that politics could get in the way of doing the right thing.

    UIFD v. RWNC --- The Logician v. The Charmer == "Lawful Neutral," "Chaotic Neutral." The Logician is principled, yes, but he's a bit of a jerk, when you get right down to it.

    UIND v. RWFC --- The Law Abider v. The Jolly Good Fellow == "True Neutrals." This is an interesting dichotomy. These are two different kinds of people who are both just trying to live their lives, but it seems like the Law Abider is just trying to be left alone but not really standing up for anything, whereas the Jolly Good Fellow is seemingly the more extroverted and pro-social but also a potential "bull in a china shop." One avoids doing wrong while never really doing right, and the other tries to do right but ignores consequences and tramples people's rights.

    UWFD v. RINC --- The Socialist v. The Blind Do-Gooder == "True Neutrals." In this case, it is a matter of "warmth and humanity" or "order and principles." The socialist is principled but unkind, fair but lawless. The blind do-gooder is kind but unprincipled, lawful but unjust.

    UWNC v. RIFD --- The Softie v. The Insensitive Asp == "Chaotic Good," "Lawful Evil." The softies out there want to do good, but they lack either common sense or a moral compass, whereas there are some people who uphold the law and maintain social order and yet apparently have hearts of stone and no real conscience to speak of, and even though they are too conscious of social order to do any real harm in most cases, they are never likable because they are authentically heartless jerks.

    Anyway, this has been an attempt to borrow some concepts from Jungian psychology to aid in the discussion of meta-ethics. Just for illustration, I tried comparing these concepts to the AD&D "alignment" system, which is a familiar attempt to systematically define where people stand, in their ethics.

    I think that this systematic type of analysis is valuable because it could really help people's moral development to try roleplaying as each of the "good" types or even each of the "evil" types, which could help raise their awareness of how they go about moral decision-making.

    For the sake of fostering discussion, though, here is my question to you: how would you rank the different types of "friends" I identified, in how you hold them in your esteem?

    If I were The Good Guy in the story, here are my favorite "superhero" buddies I'd want to have at my side, in order of preference:

    1) Robin Hood
    2) The Logician
    3) The Pragmatist
    4) Dudley Do-Right

    My most hated secondary enemies are, in this order:

    1) The Lawyer
    2) The Charmer
    3) The Politician
    4) The Rationalizer

    Now, how would you rank them?
     
    #1 Christiaan, Jul 17, 2015
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2015
  2. alilnervous

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    223
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Mesa
    I woud like to ask, why you think socialists disrespect other people's rights? Perhaps, communists, you speak of?
     
  3. Christiaan

    Christiaan Guest

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2012
    Messages:
    745
    Likes Received:
    1
    I will consider that in my revisions. The "Insensitive Asp" is more like the communist...very cold, callus and cynical, ultra-authoritarian, strips the beauty out of justice and equality. Anyhow.
     
    #3 Christiaan, Jul 17, 2015
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2015
  4. alilnervous

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    223
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Mesa
    I would then also like to ask, why you think socialists are misguided?
     
  5. Christiaan

    Christiaan Guest

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2012
    Messages:
    745
    Likes Received:
    1
    Well, I was attempting to create a metaphor, so it should be taken a little less literally.

    The Robin Hood character ignores rights like the right to property or perhaps even liberty. However, the kind of person who is perceived as a "socialist" is someone who might be trying to be a "Robin Hood," except that person really lacks human warmth or compassion. Rather than being the heroic, sexy creator of social change, like Robin Hood, the Socialist undermines his own cause, sometimes, by forgetting the "human element." The socialist, although often well-intentioned, is just uninspiring because he just doesn't have the social skills to pull of the "Robin Hood" gig, you see?

    Robin Hood gets away with being a socialist revolutionary because he kisses a baby, once in a while.
     
  6. alilnervous

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    223
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Mesa
    Robin Hood isn't a socialist, he's a communist though. He elicited force to attain equality. Compare him as a past day Che Guevara XD. Probably wasn't as great as everyone thinks, violence never is the right answer.

    Socialism is another purist ideology about the equal resources and rights for all. Unfortunately the world we live, without some form of authoritarian force (US Supreme Court, Congress etc), it is not entirely possible to use the pure ideology to create a better society. But it's idea of equal rights and resources (treating everyone equally) still stands. Although some may run with it with force or apathy, thats when it becomes communism. When you keep a pure mind about it, understand socialism revolves around empathy, because if you are unable to put yourself in the shoes of the oppressed compared to the privileged, how could you attain equality, fiscally, politically, socially etc?
     
    #6 alilnervous, Jul 17, 2015
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2015
  7. Christiaan

    Christiaan Guest

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2012
    Messages:
    745
    Likes Received:
    1
    Well, he's really a revolutionary. The contractual laws of his society have gone astray from deeper and more important principles, so those contractural laws need to be renegotiated. While his world is so upside-down, it's necessary to crack a few eggs to create the omelette of restoring his society to stability and justice.

    I am thinking of the entrenched communist state, and under that kind of doctrine, you do have stable, reliable rights, under their laws. You always have the same rights. You don't have a right to property, but that's because you have a "duty" to abide by the state's views on how property ought to be distributed. With rights come duty, which it is compulsory for you to abide by.

    Rights and duties are basically just contractual ethics. Under a system of thought that relied too heavily on rights and duties, one could say that gay people don't have any rights. It's not that rights and duties are a bad idea, necessarily, but they don't work very well without humanity in the mix. We're really better off without the concept when the laws we attempt to create need to be changed and renegotiated.
     
  8. alilnervous

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    223
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Mesa
    Well, when you have a state that forces people to pay more taxes based on your wealth, that is forced equality. Duty is an infringement on people's rights, because as me and many people see fit, "rights" means people's freedom to speech and not to even pay taxes. I guess, it would be not so if people accept that they are living under the law of a recently created entity called government, but then again do they have a say? Still infringing.

    The truth is, no matter what, people's rights will always be infringed, no matter what society you live in. All you can do, is hope that the laws and regulations you make that impact other people's rights leads to a better society. In truth though, I really was just disagreeing with you saying socialists are unempathetic, because without empathy (the root of socialism tbh!), they aren't really socialists. There are bad people everywhere, focusing on the worst is a non-sequitur people use to not focus on the fact that some people are right.

    Similarly, the idea that there is a ying and the yang in all political ideologies and that they all came balanced. No no, we all agree fascism sucks, apart from their fiscal policies though.
     
    #8 alilnervous, Jul 17, 2015
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2015
  9. Christiaan

    Christiaan Guest

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2012
    Messages:
    745
    Likes Received:
    1
    "Rights and duties" are all about contractual ethics, though. If you have a duty to pay a tax, then you don't have any right to just not pay it. You would renege on your part of the social contract, which would render some or all of your rights to be null and void.
     
  10. alilnervous

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    223
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Mesa
    You are born into a government that forces you to do that though, the idea of contractual ethics being involved in taxation is entirely an opinion (although, socialism does believe in taxation?). Though I don't understand how that has to do with the discussion socialists being cold and misguided, please explain.
     
  11. Christiaan

    Christiaan Guest

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2012
    Messages:
    745
    Likes Received:
    1
    I am arguing that the IDEAL of a socialist is the Robin Hood type of character, who is successfully creating social change and also winning the people over on it. The pejorative of a "socialist" is someone trying to promote equality, for noble reasons, while unfortunately estranging people by not really being attentive to the "human element."

    I should probably consider using a different term for what I am calling a "socialist," since I have clearly created some confusion, here. I take responsibility for that, and it indicates a need to reassess how clear my terms actually are, in the eyes of others.

    ---------- Post added 17th Jul 2015 at 12:59 PM ----------

    Perhaps I should say "populist" instead of "socialist." Does that work better for you?

    ---------- Post added 17th Jul 2015 at 01:02 PM ----------

    Basically, the way I see it is that, where a mere populist says "Power to the people!" a Robin Hood says "Power to MY people." Do you see where I am coming from?
     
  12. alilnervous

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    223
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Mesa
    Anything but socialist :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:. The ideology socialism should not create people that are cold and misguided, and if there are, terrible outliers. Yeah, people think the Robin Hood type is a socialist, the confusion between socialism and communism is just ignorance.