boneyard bill

Posted by Guttersnipe:

I completely agree with this. The idea of individual rights grows out of our social situation. It is completely lacking in some, if not most, cultures. It can have pragmatic value for a society but the society first has to define its values to determine whether individual rights are appropriate.

But that does not mean that there is no basis for a universal ethic. Consider a group of individuals who decide that they want to control the world and will do anything at all to achieve their goal and, indeed, will recognize no moral restraints even when they have achieved it. Murder, rape, atrocities, terror, lies, betrayal, and even cannibalism are acceptable practices.

As they begin their attempt at conquest they find that they are actually able to succeed using these methods against their enemies. Atrocity, fear, and terror prove to be quite effective weapons. What happens, however, when they apply these amoral principles within their own group? It seems quite clear that the group would quickly self-destruct. Honesty, loyalty, honor, trust, and a committment to the groups' common goals are essential to the function of the group itself.

Unquestionably, such conspiratorial groups have had breakdowns as one or another member attempts a coup. But unless these necessary functional values are quickly restored, either by the suppression of the coup or its complete success, the conspiratorial group itself will fall apart.

It is these values I believe: honor, trust, loyalty, honesty, and committment that form the basis of a universal ethic. (These virtues can generally be summed up with the single term "honor.") This universality and objectivity, however, derives from the fact that we are social animals, not because we are individuals.

Individual rights and other moral issues derive from the context of social interactions and are therefore not universal and absolute. Private property plays a useful role in a capitalistic society, but in feudalistic society our notion of private property is completely unworkable. On the other hand the idea that an individual could "own" a job (such as town crier) and actually pass it on through inheritance seems terribly quaint to us.

None of us has absolute rights, but when we violate the basic virtues of honor as they apply to the social context, we are rightly sanctioned or ostracized by society. The moral progress of humanity does not consist in the progressive expansion of the rights of the individual, but in the steady expansion of our notion of what constitutes the group to which we belong. Thus in modern America we give first preference to Americans, as for example in mourning the deaths of 9/11, but we also recognize all of humanity belongs to the same society in a wider sense.

Guttersnipe

Boneyard Bill: The ethic you espouse is not that different from mine. For me, morality stems from human desires and fears (ultimately instinct and genetics), and hence genuine subject-independent (objective) morals don't exist, but there may be general codes of conduct and rules that have utility to both society as a whole and the individual. Because I trace the source of morality to instinct, my ethic must be somewhat egoistic (as instinct can only function on an individual level). But I take a neo-Benthamite position - what is in the interests of the self is usually that which is in the interests of society, and often all of humanity and a good part of the animal kingdom.

boneyard bill

Guttersnipe writes:

But that is not my point. I'm claiming that the fundamental ethical principles which are summed up in the word "honor" are objective ethical facts which derive from our nature as social beings. Without these principles, society is not possible. Of course, the precise ethical conduct will vary from society to society. Suicide, for example, is not a honorable solution to anything in our society, but it has been in some societies and not so long ago. But the basic principles of honor are objective and universal.

Guttersnipe

I don't see how honor could be anything but an ideological construct that has utility to society and ultimately the self via regulation of human action. If the principles you are referring to are constructs created by us, for us - then they do not exist objectively but are rather of subjective creation. You see, for a code of conduct like honor to exist objectively, you would need to say that it would continue to exist if the human race became extinct. And how meaningful would it be to say that honor exists if there is no human action to regulate?

That these 'objective' principles would vary from society to society would strongly suggest that they are not objective, but subjective to societal values and beliefs. Let me try and clarify: If moral principles are objective, and if specific principles (like honor) vary between societies, then the objective principles are not logically consistent. So either only one possible ideal of the priciples is correct or the principles do not exist objectively but are of subjective creation.

boneyard bill

Guttersnipe writes:

But I'm not talking about a code of conduct. I'm talking about certain principles which I enumerated in a previous post and said then that I would sum these principles up with the term "honor". I do not claim that these principles have objective existence. I claim that they are not subjective. They are not mere opinions of the members of a group. They are principles that any group must follow in order to survive. Hence they derive from nature i.e. the natural fact that humans are social animals. But they are not cultural. The code of conduct is cultural, but the basic principles are universal.

The principles of honor (honesty, loyalty, etc.) are a necessary relationship for group survival. Rights is one, culturally specific, way of structuring the relationship. Duties is another way. And of course, you can mix the two as most societies do. Few societies have stressed rights as much as the modern West. Most have put more of the emphasis on duties.

The principles of honor do not vary from society to society but the specific application of those principles will vary. For example, the principle of honesty must exist. But theft would not be an issue in a social group that has no concept of private property.

This is why I agree with Elwood Blues and the libertarians in part but disagree on this essential point. Our rights are traditional. There is a sense in which they are grounded in the principles of honor, but they do not have the univeral characteristic of those principles.

Guttersnipe

Now this is why I wrote earlier that our beliefs are similar. Because I explain your 'principles' as originating from a rational attempt to describe the manifestation of a survival/propagation instinct, I believe morality is subjective to the individual, but not to the individual's beliefs. The principles a society adheres to may be a reflection of values, but some are bound to be more constructive/less detrimental to the group's survival than others. Human instinct does not function via principles, it fuctions through desires and fears. A realistic moral principle is one that takes into account the way we are. It must affirm our desire for happiness, and our avoidance of suffering. I define happiness as a state where our subjective desires are fulfilled and our fears avoided. Further, the principles should not be aimed at group survival. Though instinct and evolution may only be concerned with survial/propagation, we do not act so as to maximize the number of humans. We act so as to maximize our happiness.

Though I'm not sure what you mean by 'honor', I can state that my view of it differs from others. Some people would say that giving your life for your nation is honorable, but I find such patriotism to be foolish and ultimately dangerous to society.

99Percent

Guttersnipe: The point is that "honor" has to be truly universal in human terms. You can be honorable to your nation, but your nation, through patriotism, does not represent all of humanity.

For example, look at "Ocean's Eleven" movie. The thieves are honorable to themselves - they respect each other's share of the loot, which is great. But they are actually stealing from someone else, another human being, completely perverting the meaning of honor in the humanly universal sense. This is the point boneyard bill is trying to make, I think.

Guttersnipe

He wrote that it was not subjective to individual opinions, and that it neither existed objectively. Honor is simply used as the term used to decribe those principles which must neccessarily exist for the survival of a group. The principles themselves are simply generalizations conerning the effects of certain actions. Though it is possible for a case of murder to have positive effects on society, it is very unlikely. So when we have absolute rules to appeal to, such as 'Murder is always wrong', then we do not need to make judgements based on percieved utility, for our judgements are bound to be biased and usually short sighted. Thus, these 'principles' are in fact rule utilitarian in nature. But summing them up by the word 'honor' is slightly misleading. Honor is usually understood as a code of conduct, and as such, it is subject to cultural values.

boneyard bill

99percent writes:

Yes. These principles are objectively true. As objectively true as the law of gravity. What is not objectively true is that all of humanity has a commonality that requires that they be included in the group. This gets into the area of a certain level of human consciousness. I think humans are evolving a certain consciousness that tends toward an identification with all of humanity as a single group, but I may be wrong. After all the idea goes back at least as far as the Buddhists and the Stoics and we're still working on it.

boneyard bill

Guttersnipe writes:

They don't exist objectively in the sense that you demanded that moral rules should be objectively exist even if humans didn't. Upon reflection however, I don't see how any such standard of objectivity could be relevent to questions of human morality. Human morality presupposes human existence.

What would be the point of making disutility a standard for separating the moral from the merely practical? The second in command who murders his boss and seizes power has acted in a utilitarian fashion even though he has violated the principles of honor. But he must act immediately to re-establish the principles of honor if he is to continue his reign. This is difficult in light of the fact that he has just proven himself to be untrustworthy. This is why it is so important for usurpers to claim that they acted legally or morally in some way for the good of the group and not just for selfish gain. This is why Brutus, the "honorable man," was so essential to the plot against Ceaser, and why Anthony disparaged that claim. So I don't think these principles are "merely" utilitarian, but surely utility is an important part of what is moral. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.