NationStates Jolt Archive

It is archaic terminology that I am using, but you get the idea, yes? So, if you're reading this thread, in all probability you live in a developed area of the world. You've got a decent life, probably nothing special, but you've got a 99.999% chance of making it through the coming week and you've got TV, internet and other nifty things.

Thing is, your existence as such is supported by undeveloped nations. You prosper because oil companies do whatever it takes to pipe their product into your country, and sweatshops around the world toil away to produce goods for your countrymen. Maybe you, personally, don't buy these goods, but you still benefit from the deflationary impact and the passivity of your fellow man. The point is that if life were suddenly made fair (by aliens or Karl Marx's amazing undead ghost or whatever), you would have less material wealth. The goods in your life are bought with the negatives in other people's, which is generally regarded as a bad thing (see theft, sadism, etc).

So the question, then, is whether it is possible to be a moral/ethical/good person if your present lifestyle is supported (even indirectly) by the suffering of others. That last statement wasn't really a question, for which I apologize.

Morality is defined by the sovereign.

My answer is yes, but just because what is "moral" is subjective. I'm not going to beat myself up over things I can't control.

Yes. you know why ? How was life in Saudi Arabia before we started buying their oil?
I see lots of sand, goats, and camels.
These sweat shop workers. how often are they held by force ? It does happen I admit but as a % of the total whole it is rare. The fact they choose work under these conditions suggest it is better then other opportunities of work.

I find my life very moral.

The fact they choose work under these conditions suggest it is better then other opportunities of work.
Or that there are no other opportunities. Which we (first worlders) can be blamed for too.

*insert obvious reference to the fact that sweat shops and oil exploration aren't suffering compared to the lack of them*

To the extent to which people in developing countries are suffering and we are benefiting (meaning, we get stuff as a result of the oppression they suffer from their governments), no, this lifestyle is not moral.

Question is then, given that it is in our interest and nature to attempt to be as moral as possible - should we become neocons of sorts and try to bring about the world revolution of the liberal capitalist kind?

Question is then, given that it is in our interest and nature to attempt to be as moral as possible - should we become neocons of sorts and try to bring about the world revolution of the liberal capitalist kind?

I think even the republicans have learned in the last 6 years that is a bad idea.

These sweat shop workers. how often are they held by force ? It does happen I admit but as a % of the total whole it is rare. The fact they choose work under these conditions suggest it is better then other opportunities of work.


How about those who had their lands confiscated to build factories on top? Or the ones whose farms have gone bust because cheap foreign grain have driven them out of business so they can't support it anymore? Every single society sits on top of the backs of people who's livelihoods can best be described as downright miserable, and that society usually helps keep them there, directly or indirectly.

The question depends so much on individual moral codes (or lack of) that I voted yes.

My existence is more a travesty than a joke. How should I vote?

Thing is, your existence as such is supported by undeveloped nations. You prosper because oil companies do whatever it takes to pipe their product into your country, and sweatshops around the world toil away to produce goods for your countrymen. Maybe you, personally, don't buy these goods, but you still benefit from the deflationary impact and the passivity of your fellow man.

The thing about sweatshops is that they are a necessary evil. If people didnt buy their goods they'd simply be out of a job and have no sourcse of income. Additionally, a low cost of labor is the only comparative advantage that developing nations have; without that advantage they cant compete succesfully in the world economy and theyd be poorer and worse off than they already are. Or thats what I learnt in economics class anyways. :Shrugs:

The goods in your life are bought with the negatives in other people's, which is generally regarded as a bad thing (see theft, sadism, etc).

So the question, then, is whether it is possible to be a moral/ethical/good person if your present lifestyle is supported (even indirectly) by the suffering of others.
Yes. I work in a particularly high-moral industry, which doesn't use illegal immigrant labor, doesn't outsource to China, doesn't even import much from the third world. We don't exploit any foreigners' suffering in our work.
I refer, of course, to manufacturing weapons of power projection and mass destruction.

Just kidding, of course, I don't consider it moral, and it has even affected my morals enough to do what I'd consider highly immoral when I was 18, like stock and currency speculation.
If that's what our most moral industry is like, just think of the less moral ones.

If you live in a first world country, you have to either be a liberal, who have no moral values, a conservative, who support this exploitation, or a libertarian, whom the liberals h8 even more than conservatives, because they have to argue with them on their own grounds instead of bashing with "You did Iraq!", "Free Wilzyx!", or "Gays should marry too!", ironic as it was the most liberal state that was the first to outlaw gayrriage.

So there's no way to live in the first world and be a moral person.

How about those who had their lands confiscated to build factories on top? Or the ones whose farms have gone bust because cheap foreign grain have driven them out of business so they can't support it anymore? Every single society sits on top of the backs of people who's livelihoods can best be described as downright miserable, and that society usually helps keep them there, directly or indirectly.

It is not my concern how Eminent domain laws work in another country. Though to be fair a plot of land that could have given 10-20 farmers work (or 1 rancher at best) can easily provide 1,000 people jobs in a factory.

The beauty of trade is it is voluntary they don't want to trade they can simply leave the WTO. However the vast majority of 3rd world regimes find it more profitable to put people to work in the factories rather then on the farm, along with the benefit of cheaper food for everyone who doesn't farm. and before you scream about agricultural subsidies remember almost half of the subsidies go to get farmers to leave their fields fallow.

Yeah, because if there were no developed world, those people would experience suffering unimaginable in human terms. Poverty, starvation, famine and pestilence...all would reign supreme were it not for the efforts of the wealthier parts of the world. Without us, there would be nothing for them; the wealthy and most developed parts of the world give them the opportunity to develop themselves and one day reach a similar level of economic prosperity. Really, the Western world is a role model for everyone else. Nobody else on Earth approaches the level of freedom, prosperity, and opportunity we can offer those fortunate enough to live in our countries, and should nations embrace the conventions of liberal democracy and capitalism they would also be capable of reaching the same level as us. We simply are the best places on Earth to live and are the paragons of human achievement...no other place in the world even comes close to the quality of life offered in the developed world.

Yeah, because if there were no developed world, those people would experience suffering unimaginable in human terms. Poverty, starvation, famine and pestilence...all would reign supreme were it not for the efforts of the wealthier parts of the world. Without us, there would be nothing for them.

with out us yes. just look at the middle ages if you want an Idea of if the entire world were the developing world. 90%-99% of the population farming and barely making ends meet.

Yeah, because if there were no developed world, those people would experience suffering unimaginable in human terms. Poverty, starvation, famine and pestilence...all would reign supreme were it not for the efforts of the wealthier parts of the world. Without us, there would be nothing for them.
But you see, then they wouldn't know it's possible to live any better.

And wealth is relative. So they wouldn't be poor - they would be just like everybody else.

But you see, then they wouldn't know it's possible to live any better.

And wealth is relative. So they wouldn't be poor - they would be just like everybody else.

so the issue ois not so much that they are poor it is that we are rich ??

But you see, then they wouldn't know it's possible to live any better.

And wealth is relative. So they wouldn't be poor - they would be just like everybody else.

I don't believe that, because otherwise there would be no progress or change and everyone would be content to stay where they are. One thing that has characterized human development is that people are always capable of realizing their current state is undesirable and attempting to change it within or even beyond the limits of their abilities.

In fact, until about 400 or 500 years ago the world's wealthiest and most powerful states were the Middle East, China and the Indian kingdoms; they offered a level of technological development and economic opportunity unparalleled anywhere in the world. However, the discovery of the New World revitalized Europe's economic strength and gave them the impetus to build up their own abilities and technology and ultimately led to Western dominance over the rest of the world. That dominance came in no small part due to the Europeans' successful adaptation of knowledge from other parts of the world for their own use and improvement,

In due time, other nations and other peoples will arise that will use our knowledge and our wealth for their own betterment, pushing human progress forward and hopefully correcting those things we have failed to address. Human development really is a story of standing on the shoulders of giants, using them to survey the lands and opportunities beyond for our own betterment.

Yeah, because if there were no developed world, those people would experience suffering unimaginable in human terms. Poverty, starvation, famine and pestilence...all would reign supreme were it not for the efforts of the wealthier parts of the world. Without us, there would be nothing for them; the wealthy and most developed parts of the world give them the opportunity to develop themselves and one day reach a similar level of economic prosperity. Really, the Western world is a role model for everyone else. Nobody else on Earth approaches the level of freedom, prosperity, and opportunity we can offer those fortunate enough to live in our countries, and should nations embrace the conventions of liberal democracy and capitalism they would also be capable of reaching the same level as us. We simply are the best places on Earth to live and are the paragons of human achievement...no other place in the world even comes close to the quality of life offered in the developed world.

Its a symbiotic relationship, both developed nations and developing nations are dependant on each other to grow their economies. Im from a developing country, the only thing that supports our economy is foreign Tourism. And I see no reason why developing countries shouldnt reach the same level of economic prosperity and political freedoms achieved in the west, or why they shouldnt aspire to it. Why the sarcastic tirade?...assuming that you were being sarcastic.

But it's important to keep the peoples who hate us from getting too powerful. For millennia, civilizations have competed with eachother for power and resources. Given the chance, those Chinese workers would put you and your family to work in sweatshops so that they can live in big houses and watch tv. Those that disagree probably don't understand something I like to call history.

This is also why we eat beef. Because if we didn't eat those cows, they'd break into your homes and eat all your loved ones before devouring you.

so the issue ois not so much that they are poor it is that we are rich ??
Remove the "so much" bit.

Of course, that is the only issue.

It is not my concern how Eminent domain laws work in another country.

Of course not, not when it supports your lifestyle. I'm not really surprised. You've shown time and time again that you live by your names creed and only that.


Though to be fair a plot of land that could have given 10-20 farmers work (or 1 rancher at best) can easily provide 1,000 people jobs in a factory.

From this statement, it's rather clear you've never even seen the inside of a factory, much less done a headcount comparison to the size of the factory.


The beauty of trade is it is voluntary they don't want to trade they can simply leave the WTO.


If I put a gun to your head and demand your wallet, you have two choices, so I guess it's voluntary too.


However the vast majority of 3rd world regimes find it more profitable to put people to work in the factories rather then on the farm, along with the benefit of cheaper food for everyone who doesn't farm. and before you scream about agricultural subsidies remember almost half of the subsidies go to get farmers to leave their fields fallow.

Why don't you tell that to the Haitians who have to eat clay thanks to dumping practices that have ruined their local agriculture? Why don't you go up to one of them, and tell them right to their starving faces, how lucky they are to have traded with the first world?

But I'm sure you wouldn't. You're too comfortable reveling in your greed and enjoying the death of others.

In due time, other nations and other peoples will arise that will use our knowledge and our wealth for their own betterment, pushing human progress forward and hopefully correcting those things we have failed to address.

I hope you will sing the same song when it becomes your turn to be the exploited and oppressed labor for whatever new superpower that arises.

You see, the whole thing about "you can be as rich as us too if you just work hard" is nothing more than a pipe dream that libertarians like to sell, but will never be able to deliver. Monopolies don't like to share, and even when entropy gets them, there'll be another monopoly to keep the status quo.

I hope you will sing the same song when it becomes your turn to be the exploited and oppressed labor for whatever new superpower that arises.

There's no oppression if people are responsible and hold their governments accountable for enforcing trade and labor violations. In fact, the overwhelming majority of companies operating in the developing world are doing absolutely nothing wrong at all; more accountability and public awareness means it's that much harder to operate sweatshops than ever before.

By and large, our investment in the developing world is the primary force for reducing poverty and increasing economic and social opportunity. Without the investment by the wealthy in the poor, there would be no chance for them to improve.

So the question, then, is whether it is possible to be a moral/ethical/good person if your present lifestyle is supported (even indirectly) by the suffering of others. That last statement wasn't really a question, for which I apologize.

We could take this even further and look at spending habits ;)

Assume you have $ 10 to do with as you wish. That means you have choice:
a. You could spend it in a way that saves a life in Africa
b. You spend it in a way that makes someone here (could be you, could be a friend and so on) slightly happier, albeit probably for a short while.

I daresay that 99,999% (number pulled out of arse) will pick b in the overwhelming majority of cases. Is that moral of them ? Mr Singer says no ;)

By and large, our investment in the developing world is the primary force for reducing poverty and increasing economic and social opportunity.

Actually until quite recently foreign monetary aid and investments were the primary reasons poverty increased and life conditions worsened. Just dumping capitalism in simply does not work - if only because it will destroy the existing socio-economic structure of a country - including the established ways it cares for the less fortunate.

Fortunately that is understood now.

Of course not, not when it supports your lifestyle. I'm not really surprised. You've shown time and time again that you live by your names creed and only that.

well i tell you what lets go over their and change their laws.
Or lets place a trade embargo on them ?
How are you not an imperialist ? I mean we have an embargo against Cuba so their government will hopefully fall, for the good of the people. How are you any different then an Imperialist ? Almost every Imperialist venture was for the good of the people being conquered. your but one step from being a NEO Con.

If I put a gun to your head and demand your wallet, you have two choices, so I guess it's voluntary too.

Ive never seen or heard of the world trade organization using violence or the threat of violence.


Why don't you tell that to the Haitians who have to eat clay thanks to dumping practices that have ruined their local agriculture? Why don't you go up to one of them, and tell them right to their starving faces, how lucky they are to have traded with the first world?

But I'm sure you wouldn't. You're too comfortable reveling in your greed and enjoying the death of others.
their lack of food likely has more to do with an incompetent government then the US providing food at a cheaper price then their farmers could. Compare the Dominican republic they are on the same island, and yeah they have issues but no where near as bad off.
Sadly the only hope for a decent government came when Clinton forced the government to take back Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

well i tell you what lets go over their and change their laws.
Or lets place a trade embargo on them ?


The mess started when foreign elements decided "let's mess about with their market. We'll profit."

Does it mean that the locals won't screw up at all? Of course not. Thats laughably stupid. The only difference is who's hand is in the cookie jar of disaster this time.


How are you not an imperialist ?


The question to ask is, how am I one?


I mean we have an embargo against Cuba so their government will hopefully fall, for the good of the people. How are you any different then an Imperialist ? Almost every Imperialist venture was for the good of the people being conquered.

Yes, yes, and Bloody Mary thought she was doing her people good when she had them killed "for their souls". Spare me your pseudo moralistic ego feeding claptrap.


your but one step from being a NEO Con.

How amusing. I'm a proto neo-con now. Do try to explain how you came by that laughable idea, greed. Especially when you openly expressed a willingness to have government dissenters oppressed for money.


Ive never seen or heard of the world trade organization using violence or the threat of violence.

They use something better than a gun. Tariffs, embargoes and quotas.


their lack of food likely has more to do with an incompetent government then the US providing food at a cheaper price then their farmers could. Compare the Dominican republic they are on the same island, and yeah they have issues but no where near as bad off.


Hah! How nice of you to wash your hands clean of the problem when the house of cards you build up comes down.

There's no oppression if people are responsible and hold their governments accountable for enforcing trade and labor violations. In fact, the overwhelming majority of companies operating in the developing world are doing absolutely nothing wrong at all; more accountability and public awareness means it's that much harder to operate sweatshops than ever before.


Two huge ifs. In a world that's increasingly going "it's not my fault". Union Carbide and the Bhopal Disaster for example. Not very assuring.


By and large, our investment in the developing world is the primary force for reducing poverty and increasing economic and social opportunity. Without the investment by the wealthy in the poor, there would be no chance for them to improve.

You seem to believe that the investment will continue until some sort of parity will be achieved in economic and social opportunity. That's not true at all. Before China and India, firms invested mostly in places like Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and other countries when it came to manufacturing. The moment China and India became viable places for cheaper labor, a lot of firms transferred out, leaving behind a lot of people out of work and nowhere near the amount of business that would take them in.

Sometimes you reach a critical mass of locally owned businesses, and you can make a go of it. Most times, you don't, and you're left there with too many people to go back to agrarian life and not enough infrastructure to become self sufficient and you end up in slow decay.

It is archaic terminology that I am using, but you get the idea, yes? So, if you're reading this thread, in all probability you live in a developed area of the world. You've got a decent life, probably nothing special, but you've got a 99.999% chance of making it through the coming week and you've got TV, internet and other nifty things.

Thing is, your existence as such is supported by undeveloped nations. You prosper because oil companies do whatever it takes to pipe their product into your country, and sweatshops around the world toil away to produce goods for your countrymen. Maybe you, personally, don't buy these goods, but you still benefit from the deflationary impact and the passivity of your fellow man. The point is that if life were suddenly made fair (by aliens or Karl Marx's amazing undead ghost or whatever), you would have less material wealth. The goods in your life are bought with the negatives in other people's, which is generally regarded as a bad thing (see theft, sadism, etc).

So the question, then, is whether it is possible to be a moral/ethical/good person if your present lifestyle is supported (even indirectly) by the suffering of others. That last statement wasn't really a question, for which I apologize.

Depends on your definition of "Moral", and in the case of this post, I'd say your morality is largely influenced by the writings of the Amoral left.

Terms like "Economic Justice" and "Collective Guilt" are lies and shams-Morality breaks down to the actions of the Individual-a Corporation, for instance, can not be immoral, it can't be Amoral, and it can't be Moral, the reason is that a Corporation is a "Thing", like an automobile, country, mortgage, or pair of shoes. People may contribute to the functioning of the Thing, but it's just a thing, a dead object or representation.

individuals can be moral, or immoral, or amoral. Collectives can't.

The point is that if life were suddenly made fair (by aliens or Karl Marx's amazing undead ghost or whatever)

I for one would pay to see Karl Marx's amazing undead ghost.

On topic, I think morality is an individual concept. Yes, we all benefit from the global system, but to condemn us all as immoral for actions we have absolutely no control over would be unfair. If we try to be moral as individuals, then I think we can hold our heads high.

By my definition, I'm a very moral person. I was delighted to learn that the goalposts move. ;)

By my definition, I'm a very moral person. I was delighted to learn that the goalposts move. ;)

Standards don't much though. This one doesn't have enough funny. You're slipping LG.

An interesting question, H N.

I don't think it's an immoral act to be brought into a society which rests on the exploitaion of others; laying blame at newborns isn't very sensible. But, as one grows older, being unaware of the roots of much prosperity in the West is ignorance at best.

So the question, then, is whether it is possible to be a moral/ethical/good person if your present lifestyle is supported (even indirectly) by the suffering of others. That last statement wasn't really a question, for which I apologize.

I'll start by agreeing with Chumbly and then wander off from there. Also, of course, the following is all based on my ideas of moral/immoral, because morality is a subjective value. The moral tenet that I apply here is that it is immoral to enrich oneself at the expense of another. Moral trade is fair trade, and most of the western economy is not based on fair trade. Furthermore, the principle of fair trade can also be applied to non-human factors also, so that it can be considered immoral (and I do consider it immoral) to destroy the environment by our industry and consumption when we have the option to conduct our business in a less destructive manner or even one that improves (gives back to) the environment. So, then:

Modern affluent western society is burdened by the immorality of an economy that is dependent on exploitation of the poor and destruction of environmental resources. One can therefore say that modern affluent western society is immoral.

However, "the sins of the father" and all that -- it is not fair to blame newborns for a system just because they were born into it. We don't get to pick where we enter the world. But as we grow and learn how things work, then we start to make our own moral choices, and we end up either ignoring, endorsing, abandoning or trying to change the social system in which we live. Then we can judged as to whether we are acting morally or not.

Personally, I consider it just as immoral to ignore an immoral system as to endorse it. The moral choice would be to try to change the immoral system or to abandon it by moving to a different society. Most of us do not have the power to make significant change to a social system, but I give people credit for effort, and if a person lives their own life in as unexploitative and undestructive a way as possible, then they get morality points, in my view.

But, again in my personal view, the fact remains that, although we are not morally personally responsible for the abuses of our forebears, we are still burdened by the immorality of the system they created. We inherit their bad karma, in a way. They are no longer around to be held accountable for their bad acts, so it falls on us to take the blame for every day that we continue to benefit ourselves at the expense of others according to the system they set up.

For that reason, while I do not blame the present generation for the society created by past generations, I do hold the present generation responsible for what they do with that society now that they are in charge of it. It is a burden of guilt, not for the past but for the present, that casts a cloud over everything that happens in the affluent western world.

So when people say things like "that's just the way the world is, and I'm not going to beat myself up for the system I was handed," that to me is a pretty scummy and self-serving way of looking at things. It is, basically, a knowing endorsement of immorality, a knowing and deliberate claim of a right to benefit oneself at the expense of the suffering of others, without even the stones to own up to it.

And as for those people who claim that their moral code renders the present system moral, I just laugh that off. Their moral codes mean nothing to me. My moral code calls them hypocrites and abusers of their fellow humans and condemns them for it.

But that's just me.

So the question, then, is whether it is possible to be a moral/ethical/good person if your present lifestyle is supported (even indirectly) by the suffering of others. That last statement wasn't really a question, for which I apologize.

I believe that "moral" can only apply to one's conscious decisions, and not to things in one's environment one has no influence on.

So if any "first-worldler" decided that anything that bases on the exploitation of other, especially "third-wordlers", is baaaad, and acts accordingly (ceases their contribution to it, be it by buying things etc and protests those things they cannot actively change themselves), they are fully innocent of it and terribly moral.

So yes, I believe it is possible to be "moral" in the sense you argue - just not very wide-spread.

And as for those people who claim that their moral code renders the present system moral, I just laugh that off. Their moral codes mean nothing to me. My moral code calls them hypocrites and abusers of their fellow humans and condemns them for it.

But that's just me.
Ach, come over to the moral realist side.

Then you can really get your teeth into immoral twats.

So to be moral I have to move to Cambodia and live under an oppresive regime for the rest of my life?

I don't care and tend not to sit on my arse over thinking things *dusts hands*

So the question, then, is whether it is possible to be a moral/ethical/good person if your present lifestyle is supported (even indirectly) by the suffering of others. That last statement wasn't really a question, for which I apologize.
I also want to point out that "moral," "ethical," and "good" are not just interchangeable terms for the same thing.

Because of our responsibility for the present running of the system we inherited, all of us in the affluent western world may be stained by immorality. We may none of us be able to make a claim to a clean moral record.

But we can still be ethical, if we judge our present condition and make an ethical choice about how to deal with it. So, for instance, if a person judges the present system to be immoral and leaves it -- moves somewhere like India or Africa or Central America and adopts the local lifestyle -- on the grounds that they cannot continue to be one of the exploiters so they will instead join the exploited, that would be an ethical choice. Or if a person judges the present system to be immoral and tries to change it by changing their own lifestyle, educating their fellow citizens about the problems, and pressuring their government to make needed changes, that would be an ethical choice. And even if a person judges the current system to be okay with them, if they own it, declare it, don't make hypocritical excuses to avoid blame for it, but are willing to accept whatever comes of it because they honestly believe they are doing the right thing, then they would be acting ethically, in my view. I would oppose them, of course, but I would not call them unethical -- at least not personally unethical.

So to the extent that ethics would be a measure of how we respond to the immoral system we are born into, then I think it is possible to be an ethical person even if one is stained by a society's immorality.

As to being a good person, that is a measure of the individual. The quality of "a good person" comes from within. It may contribute to how we make choices that are either moral or immoral or ethical or unethical, but it kind of comes first, before those other two, I think. And it exists or doesn't exist, regardless of what social system we live in.

In other words, a person isn't bad just because they're rich and privileged, and a person isn't good just because they are poor and abused.

So, for instance, if a person judges the present system to be immoral and leaves it -- moves somewhere like India or Africa or Central America and adopts the local lifestyle -- on the grounds that they cannot continue to be one of the exploiters so they will instead join the exploited, that would be an ethical choice.
Why would it not also be a moral choice?

As to being a good person, that is a measure of the individual.
As is, surely, being ethical/moral?

Ach, come over to the moral realist side.

Then you can really get your teeth into immoral twats.
I have no idea which side is the moral realist side, but I'm comfortable sitting here alone in my own little chair, thanks, I'm fine.

So to be moral I have to move to Cambodia and live under an oppresive regime for the rest of my life?
Yes.*


(*I only said that because I want to see if you'll do it. :p)

Why would it not also be a moral choice?
In that case, it would. But overlap of moral and ethical does not make moral and ethical the same thing. That's why I said the words are not just interchangeable terms for the same thing. They can be used to refer to the same thing, but they also have their own independent meanings.

As is, surely, being ethical/moral?
Not necessarily. EDIT: What I mean to say is, yes, they are all three measures of the individual, but "good" is entirely self-contained within the individual regardless of circumstances. "Moral" and "ethical" only come out in relation/response to other people. I'm not making a relativist argument, but rather saying that moral and ethical stem from good/bad, arising out of the individual in social contexts. Therefore they could be a measure of something more than just the individual. The individual + society.

I consider it perfectly possible for an immoral person -- say one who engages in the sorts of immoral self-indulgence of excessive consumption or the use of illegal drugs, etc, which are, arguably immoral acts -- to nevertheless be both good and ethical.

Further, there is a reason why we have the old saying that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." Being a good person is not enough to cause one to make the right decisions in life. Having an urge to do good can just as easily lead a person who is not ethical to make decisions that end up harming rather than helping others.

In that case, it would. But overlap of moral and ethical does not make moral and ethical the same thing. That's why I said the words are not just interchangeable terms for the same thing. They can be used to refer to the same thing, but they also have their own independent meanings.
Bear with me...

So, to you, 'ethical' is a sort of 'present-morality' (for want of a better term), an evaluation of someone's current actions, not their overall being?

I consider it perfectly possible for an immoral person -- say one who engages in the sorts of immoral self-indulgence of excessive consumption or the use of illegal drugs, etc, which are, arguably immoral acts -- to nevertheless be both good and ethical.
What's the difference, in your view, of the above from saying, "I consider it perfectly possible for an immoral person to act morally at times"?

Bear with me...

So, to you, 'ethical' is a sort of 'present-morality' (for want of a better term), an evaluation of someone's current actions, not their overall being?
Likewise, please bear with me...

To me, "ethical" is both of those. I am not a moral relativist or ethical relativist, but I do think in a way that is often confused with relativism. I am a "situational ethics" person.

This is not the same as relativism, which as I understand it, allows a person to adjust their concepts of ethics and right and wrong to suit their needs in any circumstance.

Situational ethics is not that. Rather, the actions that are considered ethical will vary from situation to situation, but the principles that define the ethics do not vary. Only the actions required to realize the principles will vary. So that most of the time, violence is to be avoided, but some (hopefully rare) times it will be necessary, as the last resort. Most of the time, lying is to be avoided, other times it should be engaged in to prevent harm or conflict. And so on. This is why I have often said things like "killing is always bad, but it's not always wrong."

So in as much as situational ethics vary in expression but are founded upon an unvarying set of principles, then "ethical" is both a "present-morality" and the overall being of a person.

What's the difference, in your view, of the above from saying, "I consider it perfectly possible for an immoral person to act morally at times"?
No difference, except that your version is less verbose, of course. EDIT: Actually, I should clarify:

An immoral person can act morally sometimes. They can act immorally in the degree to which they descend into self-indulgent consumption, for instance, but act morally in the degree to which they try to help others who are suffering. A hypothetical example would be a social aid worker who is addicted to heroine. (Note: I do not consider being an addict to be immoral, but the things a person has to do to get the illegal drug are immoral.)

In that case, the immoral person is also a good person -- a good person who acts morally sometimes and immorally at other times.

If that good but immoral person also makes certain never to allow their addiction to interfere with their social work, no matter how much it may inconvenience them, then they are also acting ethically. And if they find they cannot keep the two separate, and they decide to do whatever it takes to give one of them up, then they are also acting ethically.

What I mean to say is, yes, they are all three measures of the individual, but "good" is entirely self-contained within the individual regardless of circumstances. "Moral" and "ethical" only come out in relation/response to other people. I'm not making a relativist argument, but rather saying that moral and ethical stem from good/bad, arising out of the individual in social contexts. Therefore they could be a measure of something more than just the individual. The individual + society.

So in as much as situational ethics vary in expression but are founded upon an unvarying set of principles, then "ethical" is both a "present-morality" and the overall being of a person.
I've gotcha now.

Ta.

Idk, Im kind of torn here....On the one hand, I would say no, because of the aforementioned reasons....On the other, What could you, me, Our Governments, or anyone do about it...Its not like you can go up to China and be like "Improve Conditions, Bastard" it wouldnt work, lol...

Yes.*


(*I only said that because I want to see if you'll do it. :p)

No I wouldn't. Not without some kind of incentive ;)

Idk, Im kind of torn here....On the one hand, I would say no, because of the aforementioned reasons....On the other, What could you, me, Our Governments, or anyone do about it...Its not like you can go up to China and be like "Improve Conditions, Bastard" it wouldnt work, lol...
Eh?

Are you saying there's no possible way to improve the lot of the world?

Eh?

Are you saying there's no possible way to improve the lot of the world?

Depends on the spot...but, places like Zimbabwe, China, etc...I dont see how you could until you change the government there, And we all know how that works out for the country forcing the change...

You cant make decisions for them without attacking their Sovereignty...

morality is impossible,

Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor, SEMPER !!

Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor
Then you are a bad person.

morality is impossible,

Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor, SEMPER !!

Sounds like me in the PETA thread, lol

Then you are a bad person.
I agree. That maxim is basically an admission of moral guilt, provided the translation I googled is correct.

If we were to not buy those goods, we would cut off the sweatshop workers' income. Better they work in poor conditions than starve. The only case where it is truly unethical is if they were made by slave labor.

How about those who had their lands confiscated to build factories on top? Or the ones whose farms have gone bust because cheap foreign grain have driven them out of business so they can't support it anymore? Every single society sits on top of the backs of people who's livelihoods can best be described as downright miserable, and that society usually helps keep them there, directly or indirectly.

Because their lives as subsistence farmers were likely not all that fantastic to begin with, and the social dislocation of industrialization and development (in the medium-long term) result in significantly more positive social outcomes than does letting a rotating series of Warlord's run a tiny, underdeveloped country over the same time period.

If we were to not buy those goods, we would cut off the sweatshop workers' income. Better they work in poor conditions than starve. The only case where it is truly unethical is if they were made by slave labor.

I think this is a fallacious argument. I'm not terribly familiar with the histories of current third world countries, but I would be willing to bet that prior to "industrialization" they lived in agrarian societies and were able to at least support themselves or keep themselves alive on what they produced. I'm not saying it was a utopia, but I don't think its right to suggest that sweatshops are inherently "better" than their agricultural existences were. That reeks of colonialist sentiments to me.

Idk, Im kind of torn here....On the one hand, I would say no, because of the aforementioned reasons....On the other, What could you, me, Our Governments, or anyone do about it...Its not like you can go up to China and be like "Improve Conditions, Bastard" it wouldnt work, lol...

But, that's the thing. Conditions are improving around the world--the development of an affluent middle class in China is one of the most rapid and startling socio-economic changes that the world has experienced since the Second World War. While it's not an immediate cure all, it's making life better for a whole large group of people--probably to the tune of 200-300 million right now, and countless hundreds of millions more in the future. Is their government shitty and playing economics by ear and human rights with the anus? Sure--but I suspect that will change.

If we were to not buy those goods, we would cut off the sweatshop workers' income. Better they work in poor conditions than starve. The only case where it is truly unethical is if they were made by slave labor.
This argument is false because there actually is no requirement for sweatshops to be bad work environments. Sweatshops are not like regular factories because they do abuse their workers. Sweatshop work environments have no safety features and are neither healthy nor safe to be in. The workers are denied breaks for meals or rest. The workers' pay is sometimes withheld to keep them from leaving. People suffer enduring poverty as well as ever-present sickness and injury working in such conditions.

Meanwhile, other businesses, working on a different model, are just as or more profitable and do not abuse their workers but do provide safe conditions, reasonable hours, and actually deliver the pay at the end of the week.

So this defense of sweatshops fails because there are viable alternatives to abusing workers so we can have cheap stuff.

Because their lives as subsistence farmers were likely not all that fantastic to begin with, and the social dislocation of industrialization and development (in the medium-long term) result in significantly more positive social outcomes than does letting a rotating series of Warlord's run a tiny, underdeveloped country over the same time period.
This argument also fails because the abuse of sweatshops doesn't stop being abuse just because they may also have been abused under a different system before. Just because their lives might have been bad before we showed up, that does not excuse US making their lives bad now.

I think this is a fallacious argument. I'm not terribly familiar with the histories of current third world countries, but I would be willing to bet that prior to "industrialization" they lived in agrarian societies and were able to at least support themselves or keep themselves alive on what they produced. I'm not saying it was a utopia, but I don't think its right to suggest that sweatshops are inherently "better" than their agricultural existences were. That reeks of colonialist sentiments to me.

Prior to industrialization they lived under external imperial rule for roughly a century, and that caused significant dislocation and social destruction that the previous trade-driven systems were utterly destroyed. Quite often, those systems were not all that excellent and were quite worthy of getting the axe--especially those driven by slave societies.

This argument also fails because the abuse of sweatshops doesn't stop being abuse just because they may also have been abused under a different system before. Just because their lives might have been bad before we showed up, that does not excuse US making their lives bad now.

What's currently happening will change the system in and of itself, though. Sweatshop labor, for all of the bad, provides a higher standard of living, greater free time and more interaction with similarly situated individuals than does subsistence farming. These are the social factors that will force the system to change over time, develop strong indigenous governments and improve standards of living.

We cannot impose change from the outside, is what I feel.

Prior to industrialization they lived under external imperial rule for roughly a century, and that caused significant dislocation and social destruction that the previous trade-driven systems were utterly destroyed. Quite often, those systems were not all that excellent and were quite worthy of getting the axe--especially those driven by slave societies.

I am harkening back to the days of yore before Europe messed everything up. Specifically for me, in Africa, because those are the pre-colonial societies I am most familiar with.

Honestly, we can't say the systems were better or worst. We can't pass judgment on them because anthropologically, they are simply different. Not in any moralistic way, just in systematic ways.

I am harkening back to the days of yore before Europe messed everything up. Specifically for me, in Africa, because those are the pre-colonial societies I am most familiar with.

Honestly, we can't say the systems were better or worst. We can't pass judgment on them because anthropologically, they are simply different. Not in any moralistic way, just in systematic ways.

Those societies, though, have been gone for nearly two centuries. And sometimes they were significantly worse, as some of them increased human misery above and beyond the level acceptable given the amount of resources and technology available to them at the time.

What's currently happening will change the system in and of itself, though. Sweatshop labor, for all of the bad, provides a higher standard of living, greater free time and more interaction with similarly situated individuals than does subsistence farming. These are the social factors that will force the system to change over time, develop strong indigenous governments and improve standards of living.

We cannot impose change from the outside, is what I feel.
Um, I think you're missing the point that I am saying that it does NOT provide better living conditions.

The only thing that sweatshop labor provides that feudalistic agrarian system does not is the opportunity for abused workers to form unions and, in many countries, rise up against their oppressors. Violent revolution has traditionally been part of this pattern of betterment you describe.

My point is that a non-abusive business model -- which would, by definition, NOT be sweatshop-based, since "sweatshop" =/= "factory" -- would actually raise living standards and not create a system that sows the seeds of violence.

Those societies, though, have been gone for nearly two centuries. And sometimes they were significantly worse, as some of them increased human misery above and beyond the level acceptable given the amount of resources and technology available to them at the time.
How can you know that? I am by no means saying that pre-colonial Africa was all nice and pleasant. I'm just wondering how you can possibly know that they "increased human misery above and beyond the level acceptable given the amount of resources and technology available to them" before Europeans went there, and then came back to report to the rest of us who are not Africans. I put it to you that we don't know jackshit about what it was like to be Mr or Ms Average African before the Europeans moved in and ruined the neighborhood.

Those societies, though, have been gone for nearly two centuries. And sometimes they were significantly worse, as some of them increased human misery above and beyond the level acceptable given the amount of resources and technology available to them at the time.

I don't mean to be rude, but this is armchair anthropology. We don't pass judgments on other societies because we always do so from the viewpoint of our own cultural norms and mores. The way to compare societies is from the viewpoints of those within the society - cultural relativity is what its called.

All of this is crying over split milk though. Europe came in with their mercantilism and pretty much messed every pre-industrial society that ever existed up. I believe you said earlier that we should just leave them alone, but its way too late for that. It would be rather ironic, I should think, if we start "just leaving them alone" now, after we screwed them over by not leaving them alone.

I don't mean to be rude, but this is armchair anthropology. We don't pass judgments on other societies because we always do so from the viewpoint of our own cultural norms and mores. The way to compare societies is from the viewpoints of those within the society - cultural relativity is what its called.
And it's a bunch of dangerous nonsense.

And it's a bunch of dangerous nonsense.

Anthropology?

If you're interested in post-colonialist African literature, Chinua Achebe is an interesting read (Things Fall Apart).

Morality is just an abstract concept that can't be achieved. Who are we to define the limits of what's right and wrong? Morality is just an out dated philosophical inquiry with an obscure definition, like metaphysics or epistemology. There's just no way we can do one thing or the other and say we're right or wrong.

Who says it's wrong the kill a man? God? And what about the Shinto religion of Japan that says only disrespectful and excessive killing is bad?

Who says it's wrong to exploit the poor? Karl Marx? Andrew Carnegie would surely have like to of had a few words with him.

The point is is that what we call "morals" are just standards that are enstated by people and/or institutions, and there's no real right or wrong answer in life.

Anthropology?
Cultural relativism.

If you're interested in post-colonialist African literature, Chinua Achebe is an interesting read (Things Fall Apart).
Read it in high school; damn good book.

Though I disagree with Achebe's reading of Heart of Darkness, which I believe Things Fall Apart is partly a response to.

Though I disagree with Achebe's reading of Heart of Darkness, which I believe Things Fall Apart is partly a response to.
How do you read Heart of Darkness?

Cultural relativism.
Modern anthropology centers around this concept. How is it dangerous nonsense?

Morality is just an abstract concept that can't be achieved. Who are we to define the limits of what's right and wrong?
We are human beings; social, sentient, rationally-capable animals. And we can define the limits of what's right and wrong by evaluating character (and actions) against the criteria of living a characteristically human life.

Morality is just an out dated philosophical inquiry with an obscure definition, like metaphysics or epistemology.
Is this a philosopher's flamebait? :P

I'd contend that morality, metapysics and epistemology are all very much pertinent to today's world; and indeed will always be, unless we are to abandon any thoughts of living well, the nature of the universe and/or our perceptions.

I do not suggest we do so.

There's just no way we can do one thing or the other and say we're right or wrong.
We can if we define what good is.

And I believe we can have a universal, human-orientated definition of good.



How do you read Heart of Darkness?
Not as a racist apologist-tract for colonialism, as Achebe appears to read it.

Modern anthropology centers around this concept. How is it dangerous nonsense?
It disables us from moral condemnation, in effect condoning despicable behaviour, while it unnecessarily seperates humans into 'us' and 'them'.

I believe we can have a universal, human-orientated definition of good.
You're entering dangerous territory :P

And I believe we can have a universal, human-orientated definition of good.
I believe we already do have that. It's just that some people like to pretend we don't because they want to be able to get away with shit without being held accountable for it. Plenty of people like to do bad, but few like to be called bad.

I believe we already do have that. It's just that some people like to pretend we don't because they want to be able to get away with shit without being held accountable for it. Plenty of people like to do bad, but few like to be called bad.

This is kind of a Lockean approach to the subject. One defense of his natural law is that everyone knows about it, but some people just ignore its presence. The problem is, how do we know that they are "ignoring" the natural laws we believe them to "know" - instead of them simply not knowing them in the first place.

A lot of people around the world break the laws we believe to be common sense. They sometimes do this on a societal level. Do they, as a society, simply ignore what is "right" and "good", or do they have a different definition? I think the stronger argument is for the difference.

You're entering dangerous territory
I don't think so; indeed, I think it's eminently sensible.

A lot of people around the world break the laws we believe to be common sense. They sometimes do this on a societal level. Do they, as a society, simply ignore what is "right" and "good", or do they have a different definition? I think the stronger argument is for the difference.
Having a different definition doesn't mean there are different, correct definitions.

Having a different definition doesn't mean there are different, correct definitions.
So your definition is the right one, and those with different definitions are wrong?

Are you fucking with me, or are you serious?

My entire existence is a joke. :p

And, I am not a crusader.

This is kind of a Lockean approach to the subject. One defense of his natural law is that everyone knows about it, but some people just ignore its presence. The problem is, how do we know that they are "ignoring" the natural laws we believe them to "know" - instead of them simply not knowing them in the first place.

A lot of people around the world break the laws we believe to be common sense. They sometimes do this on a societal level. Do they, as a society, simply ignore what is "right" and "good", or do they have a different definition? I think the stronger argument is for the difference.
Cultural differences clearly exist, but so do basic concepts like fairness/unfairness and dealing fairly with people versus screwing them over. Different cultures may have different ideas of what constitutes fair, but all human beings know when they are being treated unfairly. This is a human response, not a cultural one. Unfair treatment feels bad and also generates bad effects upon the social group. Therefore, treating people unfairly is a bad thing, no matter where or who you are. This stands regardless of what specific actions would constitute fair or unfair in any given culture. We may have to figure out what to do and what not do in different settings, but that does not change the foundational bedrock of good and bad in social interactions.

Cultural differences clearly exist, but so do basic concepts like fairness/unfairness and dealing fairly with people versus screwing them over. Different cultures may have different ideas of what constitutes fair, but all human beings know when they are being treated unfairly. This is a human response, not a cultural one. Unfair treatment feels bad and also generates bad effects upon the social group. Therefore, treating people unfairly is a bad thing, no matter where or who you are. This stands regardless of what specific actions would constitute fair or unfair in any given culture. We may have to figure out what to do and what not do in different settings, but that does not change the foundational bedrock of good and bad in social interactions.

Well one can also say that murder is wrong, or that rape is wrong, but the difference is in how those words are defined. Sure, murder is wrong, but if a society defines murder as X and we define it as Y then which one is correct? I think if you get broad enough you will of course find consensus, but that doesn't mean that there really exists an agreement.

So you say "treating people unfairly is a bad thing," and I don't disagree, but the point of contention is what constitutes what is fair and unfair? I think you would find ample disagreement on this issue.

Well one can also say that murder is wrong, or that rape is wrong, but the difference is in how those words are defined. Sure, murder is wrong, but if a society defines murder as X and we define it as Y then which one is correct? I think if you get broad enough you will of course find consensus, but that doesn't mean that there really exists an agreement.

So you say "treating people unfairly is a bad thing," and I don't disagree, but the point of contention is what constitutes what is fair and unfair? I think you would find ample disagreement on this issue.
I think that, if you had read my post, you would have found ample acknowledgement of that, as well as significant indications that focusing on specific acts, such as legally defined "murder", is not the way to determine universal good/bad and right/wrong. But thanks for highlighting the areas that are beside my point. Now other people will be able to tell when they've wandered off it.

focusing on specific acts, such as legally defined "murder", is not the way to determine universal good/bad and right/wrong.

No. A universal good would mean you could take anyone from society X, put them into society Y, and the things they view as "fair" in society X would be the same as the people in society Y view as fair. A universal law does not mean we all view somethings as fair and unfair, it deals with what we view in that way.

So I ignored your post because you were wrong. I'm sorry I wasn't more specific about that.

You know, I'm suspicious of the claim that the west actually relies on exploitation of the third world. Just because it happens, doesn't mean we rely on it, it sounds like pseudo-economics.

This is not the same as relativism, which as I understand it, allows a person to adjust their concepts of ethics and right and wrong to suit their needs in any circumstance.


Where do people hear this crap about relativism? That's not inherent in the idea at all. Situation ethics is based on relativism anyway, it's one of the primary concepts it rests on.

No. A universal good would mean you could take anyone from society X, put them into society Y, and the things they view as "fair" in society X would be the same as the people in society Y view as fair. A universal law does not mean we all view somethings as fair and unfair, it deals with what we view in that way.

So I ignored your post because you were wrong. I'm sorry I wasn't more specific about that.
Bullshit. Whose definition of universal good or universal law are you using? Yours, which is right because it's yours (echo of the criticism you leveled against Chumbly)?

EDIT: I made my argument in which I explained my position and the reasoning behind it. Your response is, essentially, that I'm wrong because I'm saying something other than what you say. Your attempt disqualify my argument by arbitrarily defining the terms is weak. Either address the reasoning behind my statements -- and you can start by actually reading them, btw -- or leave it be.

And, further by the way, if you're going to deliberately ignore my posts, as you say you did, then I would appreciate if you did not quote my posts in yours. That will lead to a lot fewer inter-bitch exchanges. Thanks.

And I believe we can have a universal, human-orientated definition of good.


How are you defining universal?

Bullshit. Whose definition of universal good or universal law are you using?
I'm not using one. There isn't one.

he point is that if life were suddenly made fair (by aliens or Karl Marx's amazing undead ghost or whatever), you would have less material wealth. The goods in your life are bought with the negatives in other people's, which is generally regarded as a bad thing (see theft, sadism, etc).

With the world's wealth spread so thin (see the Gini Coefficient for further reference), I seriously doubt if we had a PERFECT wealth distribution and equality, that anyone of us would have to give up anything, considering the finances of the typical NationStates player (unless Bill Gates plays NS?). The wealth of some people makes me wanna puke.

As for the question at hand, I believe morality to be a bizarre divide between the rule makers, the rule breakers and all of those who support the rules, but only if they don't need to break them.

I also believe no matter your wealth, morality as strange as it is, is a constant across humanity, it's has a self sufficient existence. The rule makers convict the rule breakers which casts them out like a leper, the rule breakers either see the fallacy in their own logic and change their ways to join another society of flawed logic (rule-makers) or they stay as a leper, and the only people who could change this, seep themselves into a pit of apathy (aka the Middle Class, which is why societies function by abolishing the middle classes).

And it depends on which side of the triangle do you consider to be moral? Or if you consider any of it to be moral for that matter...

I'm not using one. There isn't one.
Then your specific argument about why statements about universal good/law are wrong is bogus because it is without foundation. You were attempting to critique something you clearly know nothing about since it is no part of your world view or way of thinking.

Your view is that there is no such thing as universal good. Chumbly and I disagree with that. Beyond that point, there is nothing to be discussed between us. That is a difference of opinion at a foundational level.

Now, within your view, you can present the reasoning behind your point of view, and we can do the same within the confines of our point of view. If we want to critique each other, we would properly have to address the logic of our arguments. But just saying PoV A is wrong because it doesn't jibe with PoV B is not a valid argument.

And anyway, you said you had ignored what I had to say, so why don't you just keep on doing that, hm?

Being a Good Sort = moral. I am one of those people.

You know, I'm suspicious of the claim that the west actually relies on exploitation of the third world. Just because it happens, doesn't mean we rely on it, it sounds like pseudo-economics.

The West is mainly services-based. Who do you think does all the industrial and manufacturing work that we require for our daily lives? Our clothing, electronics, and even to a large extent food certainly isn't homegrown...

The West is mainly services-based. Who do you think does all the industrial and manufacturing work that we require for our daily lives? Our clothing, electronics, and even to a large extent food certainly isn't homegrown...

Yes, but that doesn't mean that if we raise the working conditions and living standards of the foreign workers, our western economies would collapse.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that if we raise the working conditions and living standards of the foreign workers, our western economies would collapse.

Agreed, western economies would thrive if they would drop conservatism's dependency on taxation for economic stimulation, like taxing income and housing and shit like that...it always has seemed a little funny to me, conservatism favours economic stability but doesn't create it...? Yes, No?

The West is mainly services-based. Who do you think does all the industrial and manufacturing work that we require for our daily lives? Our clothing, electronics, and even to a large extent food certainly isn't homegrown...
That is a mistake on our (western) part, in my opinion.

Then your specific argument about why statements about universal good/law are wrong is bogus because it is without foundation. You were attempting to critique something you clearly know nothing about since it is no part of your world view or way of thinking.

These are questions I address every day. I usually do it in the context of what other people (political philosophers) believe, but I also have my own opinion, based on certain things I have provided here. Why am I not allowed to argue against a universal good because I don't think it exists? I really don't understand what you mean. I don't think that international law exists either, am I not allowed to argue against that either? I don't think aliens exist. Am I not allowed to argue against someone who does? I don't understand why I suddenly can't argue against a universal good because I don't think it exists. There are lots of people who disagree fundamentally who argue. These arguments are not invalid simply because there is such a disagreement.

Now, within your view, you can present the reasoning behind your point of view, and we can do the same within the confines of our point of view. If we want to critique each other, we would properly have to address the logic of our arguments.

The two views aren't exclusive. The reasons I have for not believing that a universal good exist intrude upon why you think it does. They disprove your point of view.

But just saying PoV A is wrong because it doesn't jibe with PoV B is not a valid argument.

I'm saying you're wrong for a few reasons. "Because you don't agree with me," isn't one of them. You're wrong because no universal good exists, for reasons I have provided. I suppose in a way you're wrong because I'm right, but that's not really the argument I'm using.

These are questions I address every day. I usually do it in the context of what other people (political philosophers) believe, but I also have my own opinion, based on certain things I have provided here. Why am I not allowed to argue against a universal good because I don't think it exists? I really don't understand what you mean. I don't think that international law exists either, am I not allowed to argue against that either? I don't think aliens exist. Am I not allowed to argue against someone who does? I don't understand why I suddenly can't argue against a universal good because I don't think it exists. There are lots of people who disagree fundamentally who argue. These arguments are not invalid simply because there is such a disagreement.



The two views aren't exclusive. The reasons I have for not believing that a universal good exist intrude upon why you think it does. They disprove your point of view.



I'm saying you're wrong for a few reasons. "Because you don't agree with me," isn't one of them. You're wrong because no universal good exists, for reasons I have provided. I suppose in a way you're wrong because I'm right, but that's not really the argument I'm using.

You have provided no reasons. You have provided opinions. Your opinions are fine and good for you, but I do not find your logic so perfect that I would change my mind in response to it. I find your argument is entirely dependent on a set of subjective assumptions. I don't need your assumptions. I already have my own, thanks.

Since the fundamental disagreement -- whether there is or is not a universal good -- is a subjective matter of a person's attitude about human nature, there is no way you can "disprove" my point of view using just the assumption-based opinion argument you have presented. You would have to show objective data indicating that no such "good" exists, and this you have not done. You have disproved nothing.

You are entitled to your opinion, just like we all are. Just don't pretend it is anything other than what it is -- your opinion.

Let's perform a thought experiment. Hobbes would be proud.

Say you have a fellow, nice, moral guy from society X. You get him to board a plane and fly over to society Y. He meets another nice, moral fellow from society Y. Are the two going to agree on how society Z should be constructed?

A universal good would mean we all agree on something basic. It can be anything. But it can't just be a platitude. "Murder is bad," is not a universal law, it is meaningless. "Murder is X, Y, and Z and they are all bad," would be a universal law.

But yes, you're right. This is a subjective argument. Well, the argument is on my side. I haven't seen much from your side.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that if we raise the working conditions and living standards of the foreign workers, our western economies would collapse.

I don't disagree with that, but the current situation is that foreign workers are being exploited. And given that we rely on these sweatshops and what have you for various necessities and luxuries we really are relying on exploitation. I hope that's not too confusing but yeah. If we raise the standards, then no problem, it's an equitable situation.

whether there is or is not a universal good

UNIBOT'S OPINION OF UNIVERSAL GOOD


You either believe in your innate moralities and therefore universal good (Rule Makers) Or you question the existence of them and wish to step out of the box that "moral" society has crafted (rule breakers). Or you're just at the bottom of the box, kinda of stuck wondering what you are, because you know your neither (Rule Followers).

Yeah, because if there were no developed world, those people would experience suffering unimaginable in human terms. Poverty, starvation, famine and pestilence...all would reign supreme were it not for the efforts of the wealthier parts of the world. Without us, there would be nothing for them; the wealthy and most developed parts of the world give them the opportunity to develop themselves and one day reach a similar level of economic prosperity. They don't really have the chance to reach a similar level of economic prosperity. The level of economic prosperity in the west is due largely to the overconsumption of resources. Everyone in the world can't consume resources at the same level as we in the west do.

There's no oppression if people are responsible and hold their governments accountable for enforcing trade and labor violations.It isn't necessarily possible to do this.

What's currently happening will change the system in and of itself, though. Sweatshop labor, for all of the bad, provides a higher standard of living, greater free time and more interaction with similarly situated individuals than does subsistence farming. These are the social factors that will force the system to change over time, develop strong indigenous governments and improve standards of living.It might be true that sweatshop work provides people a greater chance to interact with other people, but it's debatable that the standard of living is higher and that sweatshop workers have more free time than they ordinarily would.

We are human beings; social, sentient, rationally-capable animals. And we can define the limits of what's right and wrong by evaluating character (and actions) against the criteria of living a characteristically human life.How can you define what is a "characteristically human life" without referring to culturally-specific characteristics at some point?

You're wrong because no universal good exists, for reasons I have provided.Didn't you say earlier that you weren't using a defintion of 'universal good'?

Didn't you say earlier that you weren't using a defintion of 'universal good'?
You're going to have to be clearer. I don't have a definition of universal good because I don't believe it exists, so its not unlikely.

You're going to have to be clearer. I don't have a definition of universal good because I don't believe it exists, so its not unlikely.How can you determine whether or not something exists without first defining it?

Let's perform a thought experiment. Hobbes would be proud.

Say you have a fellow, nice, moral guy from society X. You get him to board a plane and fly over to society Y. He meets another nice, moral fellow from society Y. Are the two going to agree on how society Z should be constructed?

A universal good would mean we all agree on something basic. It can be anything. But it can't just be a platitude. "Murder is bad," is not a universal law, it is meaningless. "Murder is X, Y, and Z and they are all bad," would be a universal law.

But yes, you're right. This is a subjective argument. Well, the argument is on my side. I haven't seen much from your side.
Because of the bolded sentence, I have no interest in your experiment. As you stated it, your subjectivity is clear. To engage you on these terms would only lead to us chasing each other around repeating ourselves with our subjective opinions to no purpose. Especially as you are still pretending that I have not presented my position -- it's clear you are not really interested in what I have to say. I am not interested in being bored by such an argument. Sorry.

How can you determine whether or not something exists without first defining it?

I'm very sorry. That was a grave error of speech on my part. I do have a definition of what a universal good would be.

To engage you on these terms would only lead to us chasing each other around repeating ourselves with our subjective opinions to no purpose. Especially as you are still pretending that I have not presented my position
Humor me. I have my thought experiment, which while maybe not objective isn't quite so bad as to be totally invalid either. What is your position, clearly and concisely? And please, stay away from platitudes.

I'm very sorry. That was a grave error of speech on my part. I do have a definition of what a universal good would be.


Humor me. I have my thought experiment, which while maybe not objective isn't quite so bad as to be totally invalid either. What is your position, clearly and concisely? And please, stay away from platitudes.
If you were proposing a real debate rather than clearly setting up a "gotcha" scenario -- I'm referring to that "platitudes" remark, which is a condescending, dismissive, and prejudiced put down of my earlier statements -- then there would be no question of anyone "humoring" anyone. I will not "humor" you. I will not jump through hoops for you. If you want to know what my position is, you can read the posts already in the thread, and you can continue with the thread in general and see what else comes to light in any future remarks I may make.

If I weren't so hungover after a night not spent huddled in a refugee camp desperately hoping not to be slaughtered by armed rebels, I might reply to this thread, but as is it, I need to first consume more calories in a single day than the average person in the majority world consumes in three, produce more than six times the waste, and be personally responsible for burning an embarrassing amount of fossil fuels. I'll be better able to claim moral righteousness tomorrow, I'm sure.

Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor, SEMPER !!
I feel that way sometimes. It is a very pathetic and miserable mode of existence.
I also want to point out that "moral," "ethical," and "good" are not just interchangeable terms for the same thing.
I was quite drunk when I started this, so I was playing pretty fast and loose with my terminology. I don't really like making a large distinction between ethics and morals, though, as they're both systems for evaluating a person's actions.
individuals can be moral, or immoral, or amoral. Collectives can't.
No, collectives can't be guilty. That's why we hold the people (ie us) guiding the collective responsible.

If I weren't so hungover after a night not spent huddled in a refugee camp desperately hoping not to be slaughtered by armed rebels, I might reply to this thread, but as is it, I need to first consume more calories in a single day than the average person in the majority world consumes in three, produce more than six times the waste, and be personally responsible for burning an embarrassing amount of fossil fuels. I'll be better able to claim moral righteousness tomorrow, I'm sure.
Wow, you're going to be busy tonight and tomorrow.

Wow, you're going to be busy tonight and tomorrow.

Huh?

Oh I'm done already.

Where do people hear this crap about relativism? That's not inherent in the idea at all. Situation ethics is based on relativism anyway, it's one of the primary concepts it rests on.
Situational ethics (using the term in the general sense, and not specifically referencing Christian philosophy) are not necessarily relativistic. Moral relativism is simply the premise that there is no absolute that all people should be expected to follow.
Too illustrate the difference. A moral relativist could say, "I will never, under any circumstances, take a life." This isn't a situational statement, but it is morally relative (because it doesn't pass judgment on others).
Whereas a moral absolutist who believes that morality is situational could say, "It is absolutely true that no person should take a life unless their own safety is at risk." It is an absolute moral statement (because it makes a claim on everyone), but it is situational (because there are times when this rule doesn't apply).
The problem with a lot of people who claim to be moral relativists is that they only go half way. They abandon other people's moral ideals, but never build any of their own.

Huh?

Oh I'm done already.
Nice! You're a real westerner. :D

Situational ethics (using the term in the general sense, and not specifically referencing Christian philosophy) are not necessarily relativistic. Moral relativism is simply the premise that there is no absolute that all people should be expected to follow.
Too illustrate the difference. A moral relativist could say, "I will never, under any circumstances, take a life." This isn't a situational statement, but it is morally relative (because it doesn't pass judgment on others).
Whereas a moral absolutist who believes that morality is situational could say, "It is absolutely true that no person should take a life unless their own safety is at risk." It is an absolute moral statement (because it makes a claim on everyone), but it is situational (because there are times when this rule doesn't apply).
The problem with a lot of people who claim to be moral relativists is that they only go half way. They abandon other people's moral ideals, but never build any of their own.
Nicely said. Very good explanation. Thanks.

Nice! You're a real westerner. :D

All I had to do was crank the heat in my apartment, throw away my fake x-mas tree with all the trimmings, hop in my friend's SUV to go get a box of dingdongs. Voila! First world excess at its very best!

I was quite drunk when I started this, so I was playing pretty fast and loose with my terminology. I don't really like making a large distinction between ethics and morals, though, as they're both systems for evaluating a person's actions.


The only types of people I've EVER seen make a distinction, are sociologists. Philosophers don't tend to. When I studied the subject of ethics itself, there was not once a distinction made, when I read what the distinctions are, they're either incredibly insignificant, or another way of describing exactly the same thing.

Nice! You're a real westerner. :D
See, I don't like the term Westerner because it lets the Japanese off the hook. There are people starving to death in Africa, and what are they doing? Spending millions of dollars to make robots that play the fucking trumpet.
Also, I guess some parts of Australia and New Zealand aren't quite inhospitable wastelands.

See, I don't like the term Westerner because it lets the Japanese off the hook. There are people starving to death in Africa, and what are they doing? Spending millions of dollars to make robots that play the fucking trumpet.
Also, I guess some parts of Australia and New Zealand aren't quite inhospitable wastelands.
True. I'll go for Nees's "first world" instead.

Situational ethics (using the term in the general sense, and not specifically referencing Christian philosophy) are not necessarily relativistic. Moral relativism is simply the premise that there is no absolute that all people should be expected to follow.

Which is a major primary premise of situation ethics. I'm not saying it's the same thing, I'm just saying they don't contradict it. The actual moral philosophy of situation ethics was specifically created to reconcile the conflict between Christianity and moral relativism. The only universal good in a situation ethicist's eyes is 'agape', or love. What Situation Ethicists try do is see how they best can apply the principle of agape to every situation. Which is why...


"It is absolutely true that no person should take a life unless their own safety is at risk."

... I'm not entirely sure that is quite what a situational ethicist would say at all. That is still too absolute and deontological, situation ethicists don't attempt to prescribe any specific moral rules like that.

Which is a major primary premise of situation ethics. I'm not saying it's the same thing, I'm just saying they don't contradict it. The actual moral philosophy of situation ethics was specifically created to reconcile the conflict between Christianity and moral relativism. The only universal good in a situation ethicist's eyes is 'agape', or love. What Situation Ethicists try do is see how they best can apply the principle of agape to every situation. Which is why...
I wasn't addressing Christian Situational Ethics (something I only vaguely remember from one of my Freshman seminars), I was talking about the adjective form.
... I'm not entirely sure that is quite what a situational ethicist would say at all. That is still too absolute and deontological, situation ethicists don't attempt to prescribe any specific moral rules like that.
I just wanted a fast and easy example, wherein there is a normal rule, but there are conditions where it doesn't apply.

I wasn't addressing Christian Situational Ethics (something I only vaguely remember from one of my Freshman seminars), I was talking about the adjective form.


But most people who identify themselves as situation ethicists are referring to the philosophy espoused by Fletcher. You don't have to be a Christian to follow it, it just has Christian routes. But if Mura isn't talking about that then whatev.

H N Fiddlebottoms VIIIIt is archaic terminology that I am using, but you get the idea, yes? So, if you're reading this thread, in all probability you live in a developed area of the world. You've got a decent life, probably nothing special, but you've got a 99.999% chance of making it through the coming week and you've got TV, internet and other nifty things.
My internet is dodgy, and i have to share TV with 5 other people, all with different ideas of what to watch, the thing which stops us from arguing so much is we have other things we can do.
Depends on how you measure decent, there's been some moments where i've been pretty upest, other moments pretty happy.

Thing is, your existence as such is supported by undeveloped nations.
no it's not purely supported by undeveloped nations, and i'd like your definition of undeveloped. socially, economically, culturally?

You prosper because oil companies do whatever it takes to pipe their product into your country, and sweatshops around the world toil away to produce goods for your countrymen.
How do you know i prosper at all?
what are you suggesting, destroying oil companies? the fight club answer or anarchism?

Maybe you, personally, don't buy these goods, but you still benefit from the deflationary impact and the passivity of your fellow man.
who says all men are passive, another dodgy presumption.

The point is that if life were suddenly made fair (by aliens or Karl Marx's amazing undead ghost or whatever), you would have less material wealth.
Depends on what definition of fair you use.
Why would anything be made any more fair by equalising material goods, ever heard of spirituality, socialising, family hell even love?
what about suffering? how would you equalise suffering?
What if some mass murderer who was initially poor suddenly got lots of material wealth and freedom from this strange idea, would that be moral to allow someone who kills many people to get even more money?

The goods in your life are bought with the negatives in other people's, which is generally regarded as a bad thing (see theft, sadism, etc).
No this is a fallacious statement. My goods may also have been secured by my own ancestors efforts. or any number of ways of making money/materials what have you.
Not all wealth is necessarily brought about by other people suffering inhumanity. Some is but finding that out isn't as easy as you make it sound.
Some people are happy working for others.

So the question, then, is whether it is possible to be a moral/ethical/good person if your present lifestyle is supported (even indirectly) by the suffering of others. That last statement wasn't really a question, for which I apologize.
Depends on the definition of morality/good/ethics and whether you think they exist at all.
Just because alot of people suffer to make goods for others does not mean that i am responsible for their suffering, and i am not in any position to judge other people's way of bringing in income purely based on what i get and what happens to me.

Your poll is attention grabbing and suggests you were pretty upset when you made it.

An interesting question, H N.

I don't think it's an immoral act to be brought into a society which rests on the exploitaion of others; laying blame at newborns isn't very sensible. But, as one grows older, being unaware of the roots of much prosperity in the West is ignorance at best.

The thing is, people like the ignorance, even when they're supposed to be old enough to know better. Then they go on to perpetuate the problems of the last generation. It's a never ending cycle.

In my opinion (hah you cannot argue with me now!) I believe that in order for me to be a moral person in any society I have to follow a modest lifestyle. That being said, I try to limit myself to the luxuries of life, because I know it does cause suffering on people world wide.

In my opinion (hah you cannot argue with me now!) I believe that in order for me to be a moral person in any society I have to follow a modest lifestyle.

This is what I try to do as well. Of course, this begs the question, how modest? I estimate that I consume far fewer resources than the average citizen in my country; but there's a certain amount that I won't sacrifice regardless of who it helps. It feels immoral to enjoy, as a first-worlder, comforts like food, internet and insulated shelter, when there are third-worlders who are starving, freezing, etc, even if their suffering isn't a direct result of how I live. But I do it anyway. I recognize this, which is why I try to offset any amount of money I spend on luxuries by charitable donations, which seems to me the most tangible way to make up for the life I live.

I realize it's pretty selfish to say to a starving sweatshop worker that I can have X and he can't. But I don't have the power to change his life; all I could do to make us equal is move to his country and become a peasant, which I think is pretty stupid because then neither of us would have X. By my thinking, we both should have X. I know that won't happen because the first world consumes too much resources to be sustainable. I can't change that, but I can change how much I consume.

At least, that's what I tell myself.

How can you define what is a "characteristically human life" without referring to culturally-specific characteristics at some point?
By definition, something that is culturally-specific is not a characteristic human life.

See this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14428276&postcount=81) post for a more detailed response.



The thing is, people like the ignorance, even when they're supposed to be old enough to know better. Then they go on to perpetuate the problems of the last generation. It's a never ending cycle.
This brings us back to our main disagreement on these boards.

I'd point to the changes in society, even in the last fifty years, as evidence of the fact that they cycle ends. Sure, we can forget easily, but some lessons are learned; look to the improving lot of non-whites and women, as well as the massive change in public consciousness about the environment.

Because their lives as subsistence farmers were likely not all that fantastic to begin with, and the social dislocation of industrialization and development (in the medium-long term) result in significantly more positive social outcomes than does letting a rotating series of Warlord's run a tiny, underdeveloped country over the same time period.

The positive outcomes aren't guaranteed though, since they do have their own share of pitfalls. Especially if foreign investors pull out, be it cheaper labor elsewhere or something else, before the local economy has enough infrastructure to be self supporting.

Warlords or feudal societies have their own share of problems too, I won't dispute that. But the one thing that marks them differently from most industrializing countries is that they tend to have been sustainable in terms of livelihoods.

This brings us back to our main disagreement on these boards.

I'd point to the changes in society, even in the last fifty years, as evidence of the fact that they cycle ends. Sure, we can forget easily, but some lessons are learned; look to the improving lot of non-whites and women, as well as the massive change in public consciousness about the environment.

Well let's try to get a few things down that we can agree on alright?

Resources are limited, correct?

Wants are generally (not always, but mostly) tied to resources or resource derivatives, correct?

I think we can agree on those two.

Now, you've mentioned the improving lot of non-whites and women. But to that, I would point out that you appear to be referring to your country and considerations thereof. This isn't bad in itself. Not at all. But I would counter that instead of it being a public consciousness of improving the lot of all, it's instead simply included people in proximity into the social group e.g. Americans. Concern for people outside this social group, is much less than those within. This is especially so when it comes to allocating (or exploiting) resources that belong to other group for the use of the social group you belong to.

If there are several layers between that social group and the others, then it becomes easier to ignore the issues of the other groups, even if they are causing problems for that group.

The question of limited resources only serves to exacerbate the problem, since any group will always look for its benefit, which usually means controlling those resources somehow, even at the expense of another.

The point of contention, is that you believe, in effect, that it is possible to form a supergroup, a species wide level of social identification that transcends the usual indicators of wealth, skin color, geography and personal belief (sometimes political leanings too). Maybe not in that exact manner, but the effect would be similar.

I for one, do not believe it to be possible for such a supergroup to appear short of some extreme form of an 'other' showing up to threaten all the individual social groupings equally. And even then it is doubtful.

Well let's try to get a few things down that we can agree on alright?
An admirable cause.

But before we get going, I may have slightly misread your meaning with the statement, "Then they go on to perpetuate the problems of the last generation. It's a never ending cycle."I took that to mean that the problems of the last generation, such as racism or sexism, are never fixed.

Perhaps you didn't quite mean this as harshly as I took it?

Resources are limited, correct?

Wants are generally (not always, but mostly) tied to resources or resource derivatives, correct?

I think we can agree on those two.
I certainly agree with your first point and hesitantly agree with your second, though I'd want to note that we have a huge amounts of wants for non-resource-based things. I recognise you acknowledge this, and it's an interesting argument for another time whether we do generally want more material (for want of a better term) things than non-material.

Concern for people outside this social group, is much less than those within. This is especially so when it comes to allocating (or exploiting) resources that belong to other group for the use of the social group you belong to.

If there are several layers between that social group and the others, then it becomes easier to ignore the issues of the other groups, even if they are causing problems for that group.
Quite true.

However, I'd suggest that these 'layers' are dropping off, that our 'moral sphere', our group, is extending (slowly) to a global scale. More and more, the effect of our actions to those on the other side of the globe is apparent. Communication and transportation has made the world, in effect, a closer community; by no means one big happy family, but certainly we are aware both of people half-way around the world, and of the way we interact.

I'd contend that with this closeness comes ethical responsibility, or, at least, an influx of far-away peoples into our moral community.

The point of contention, is that you believe, in effect, that it is possible to form a supergroup, a species wide level of social identification that transcends the usual indicators of wealth, skin color, geography and personal belief (sometimes political leanings too). Maybe not in that exact manner, but the effect would be similar.

I for one, do not believe it to be possible for such a supergroup to appear short of some extreme form of an 'other' showing up to threaten all the individual social groupings equally. And even then it is doubtful.
That's a good summing up of (broadly) our respective positions.

I've little to add.

Only if you view the current situation as immoral. If you disregard the current reality or perhaps even enjoy it, then no obviously. One can not be considered moral if support the oppression and suffering of others. Particularly if the ends to the means of that suffering is simply wanton materialism and greed.

An admirable cause.

But before we get going, I may have slightly misread your meaning with the statement, "Then they go on to perpetuate the problems of the last generation. It's a never ending cycle."I took that to mean that the problems of the last generation, such as racism or sexism, are never fixed.

Perhaps you didn't quite mean this as harshly as I took it?

No, no, not racism or sexism. That's a very narrow category and is more of a symptom than a cause of the problem. The problems that I refer to is the placing of greater importance on the self or a self-identified group than the species as a whole. I believe that is the root cause of a whole lot of symptoms, including racism and sexism. Symptoms can be swapped out, and can be replaced with something else. Root causes, not so much.


However, I'd suggest that these 'layers' are dropping off, that our 'moral sphere', our group, is extending (slowly) to a global scale. More and more, the effect of our actions to those on the other side of the globe is apparent. Communication and transportation has made the world, in effect, a closer community; by no means one big happy family, but certainly we are aware both of people half-way around the world, and of the way we interact.

I'd contend that with this closeness comes ethical responsibility, or, at least, an influx of far-away peoples into our moral community.

I'm not too sure about this particular contention though. Communication and transportation may have increased awareness and decreased proximity, but as far as I can see, it doesn't much reduce the amount of social isolation most self-identified groups have already.

Yes, they are aware of each other, but if they don't care to get any closer than that, they won't bring the other into the self identified sphere of ethical equality/morality. And this has to work both ways, a tricky proposition at best.

It is archaic terminology that I am using, but you get the idea, yes? So, if you're reading this thread, in all probability you live in a developed area of the world. You've got a decent life, probably nothing special, but you've got a 99.999% chance of making it through the coming week and you've got TV, internet and other nifty things.

Thing is, your existence as such is supported by undeveloped nations. You prosper because oil companies do whatever it takes to pipe their product into your country, and sweatshops around the world toil away to produce goods for your countrymen. Maybe you, personally, don't buy these goods, but you still benefit from the deflationary impact and the passivity of your fellow man. The point is that if life were suddenly made fair (by aliens or Karl Marx's amazing undead ghost or whatever), you would have less material wealth. The goods in your life are bought with the negatives in other people's, which is generally regarded as a bad thing (see theft, sadism, etc).

So the question, then, is whether it is possible to be a moral/ethical/good person if your present lifestyle is supported (even indirectly) by the suffering of others. That last statement wasn't really a question, for which I apologize.

I disagree with your premise that wealth is created at the expense of harming other people.

I am selfish and rational. Therefore, I am completely and perfectly moral.

By definition, something that is culturally-specific is not a characteristic human life.This is true; I dispute that it's possible to come up with a characteristically human life because all definitions will be culturally-specific.

See this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14428276&postcount=81) post for a more detailed response.This seems to be an instance of the is/ought fallacy.

I am selfish and rational. Therefore, I am completely and perfectly moral.
The bolded attests to the falsehood of your conclusion.



This is true; I dispute that it's possible to come up with a characteristically human life because all definitions will be culturally-specific.
Not if we describe those things that are characteristically human, i.e, universal to all ('normal' or non brain-damaged, etc.) humans.

This seems to be an instance of the is/ought fallacy.
How so?

This seems to be an instance of the is/ought fallacy.

Yep. They call it the naturalistic fallacy for a reason.

The bolded attests to the falsehood of your conclusion.
No, it doesn't.

Selfishness is in fact the highest of virtues.

No, it doesn't.

Selfishness is in fact the highest of virtues.

What possible compelling reason is there to agree with that?

What possible compelling reason is there to agree with that?

The fact that it is true.

The fact that it is true.

damn it, where's that Ayn Rand poster...

The fact that it is true.

http://rubenerdshow.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/CircularReasoning.png

The fact that it is true.

... Do you want to debate or not?

http://rubenerdshow.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/CircularReasoning.png

Except, I'm not saying "it's true because it's true;" I'm saying "you should agree with it because it's true."

... Do you want to debate or not?

Nothing to debate; its truth has already been conclusively proven.

I can show you the proof if you want, though.

Nothing to debate; its truth has already been conclusively proven.

I can show you the proof if you want, though.

Please do.

The only types of people I've EVER seen make a distinction [between ethics and morality], are sociologists. Philosophers don't tend to
You're right, most don't.

But some do; Alain Badiou, to take a prominent example.

Yep. They call it the naturalistic fallacy for a reason.
I've discussed this elsewhere (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14410789#post14410789), suffice to say, calling an opponents position a fallacy is, to be rather tongue-in-cheek, a weak fallacy in itself.

Moreover, Moore's 'naturalistic fallacy' is hotly (http://www.philosophy.uncc.edu/mleldrid/cmt/mmp.html) contested (http://fair-use.org/peter-t-geach/good-and-evil).



No, it doesn't.
OK, we've both got our implicit premises.

Let's discuss.

Selfishness is in fact the highest of virtues.
Towards what end(s)?

How does it promote human flourishing or the virtuous life?

Warlords or feudal societies have their own share of problems too, I won't dispute that. But the one thing that marks them differently from most industrializing countries is that they tend to have been sustainable in terms of livelihoods.
Sustainable only at a vastly lower population density. If we are going to return Third World countries to the paradisical state they were in before the ebul white man ruined everything, the first thing that has to happen is the death of 90% of the people.

damn it, where's that Ayn Rand poster...
You don't need it. BC is obviously already steeped in the writings of the eminent 20th century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand. In fact, I'll bet he has her collected works open next to his computer right now.

I can show you the proof if you want, though.

Yes, that would be lovely.

You're right, most don't.

But some do; Alain Badiou, to take a prominent example.


To make a distinction seems like a waste of time, in my opinion.


I've discussed this elsewhere (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14410789#post14410789), suffice to say, calling an opponents position a fallacy is, to be rather tongue-in-cheek, a weak fallacy in itself.


I don't think you have made an argument, in that post, that overcomes the is/ought problem. For instance, I dispute that "we happily talk of objectively 'good plants'", we talk about 'good plants', but this is subject to general human preference, and is not something that contains any actual objective property of 'goodness'.


Moreover, Moore's 'naturalistic fallacy' is hotly (http://www.philosophy.uncc.edu/mleldrid/cmt/mmp.html) contested (http://fair-use.org/peter-t-geach/good-and-evil).


I'm sure it is. Everything is hotly contested. Care to provide any summaries of arguments from those papers challenging the is/ought fallacy?

*snip*

So the question, then, is whether it is possible to be a moral/ethical/good person if your present lifestyle is supported (even indirectly) by the suffering of others. That last statement wasn't really a question, for which I apologize.

It's an excellent question, and I really wish I had the time to read more than the first thirty replies.

I agree with Chumblywumbly and with Muravyets, that a newborn can't be held responsible for being born into an advantage position (ie in a developed country.)

And while I agree with Muravyets' opinion that a person is more or less moral depending on how they use their power as it develops (growing up) something worries me about that too. Two people are not necessarily equally empowered to change the world they live in -- even if they were twins, let alone simply citizens of the same country.

I would say that the richer an individual is, the more power they have to change the world by their spending choices (and in fact with their time and effort.) In so far as their wealth is "looted" from the foreign poor, they are less moral and to do nothing to redress that is worse than for a poorer person in the same country to do nothing.

But that isn't a very useful guide to how much to expect from a person, to offset "historical guilt" as they become aware of it. It isn't very useful, because people are not just rich or poor, they become richer or poorer by the exact same mechanism they would use to redress it, which is economic participation in society.

I do recognize that I am favoured by history, and have power I could but do not use to improve this situation I find unjust. It's quite troubling, and it's one of the things I ponder a lot but with very little progress so far. History is so much bigger than each of us ...

It's an excellent question, and I really wish I had the time to read more than the first thirty replies.

I agree with Chumblywumbly and with Muravyets, that a newborn can't be held responsible for being born into an advantage position (ie in a developed country.)

And while I agree with Muravyets' opinion that a person is more or less moral depending on how they use their power as it develops (growing up) something worries me about that too. Two people are not necessarily equally empowered to change the world they live in -- even if they were twins, let alone simply citizens of the same country.

I would say that the richer an individual is, the more power they have to change the world by their spending choices (and in fact with their time and effort.) In so far as their wealth is "looted" from the foreign poor, they are less moral and to do nothing to redress that is worse than for a poorer person in the same country to do nothing.

But that isn't a very useful guide to how much to expect from a person, to offset "historical guilt" as they become aware of it. It isn't very useful, because people are not just rich or poor, they become richer or poorer by the exact same mechanism they would use to redress it, which is economic participation in society.

I do recognize that I am favoured by history, and have power I could but do not use to improve this situation I find unjust. It's quite troubling, and it's one of the things I ponder a lot but with very little progress so far. History is so much bigger than each of us ...
I do not disagree with you. I do not want to give the impression that I expect everyone in the first world to turn into social justice action heroes. Even if they did, we can't expect that every person is going to have the ability to make a real difference, an equal difference, or any difference at all. Life makes its own demands, and for most people, even in the first world, keeping body and soul together and a roof over the head consume all our time and resources.

But I do give morality points for caring and effort. To me, the real, long-term key to changing this system is to change the attitudes and expectations of people in the first world, and that can be done slowly, step by step, by individual people raising their consciousness and altering their own habits.

In my view, it is the difference between taking all you can, because you can, regardless of whether you need it or not, and taking what you need for life and comfort and then stopping for the moment, even though more may be available. It's not a matter so much of immediately changing the economic and labor conditions of the world right now. It's more a matter of changing the idea that "I deserve all this stuff, so it has to be provided to me, no matter what it takes."

The idealistic goal is not just to get the first world to consume less of the world's resources. That is important. But it is also to get people to lose that "but I want mine, no matter what" attitude, especially the "no matter what" part. To me, it's more about changing the expectations of consumerism and short-term profit-chasing in business. Obviously, that would take many, many years to take shape, but I do believe that kind of cultural shift comes from the bottom up, from the minds of individual people.

So, yes, I do give credit to those who make an effort to control their own consumption and be mindful of social justice in their buying, even if it doesn't have much effect right now.

Not if we describe those things that are characteristically human, i.e, universal to all ('normal' or non brain-damaged, etc.) humans. Does this mean that things that aren't typical of 'normal' humans are wrong? And that anything that is typical of normal humans (e.g. the capacity to commit violence) is not wrong?

How so?Well, you're speaking of morality as a matter of 'is', when it is by definition a matter of 'should/ought'.

See:

"Murder is wrong."
"So?"
"So you shouldn't murder."

while it is certainly possible, it is only by willing to live without a great deal others around you take for granted, and perhaps somewhat more often then they, finding yourself, usually through no fault of your own, unemployed.

If your informed, and know what is going on then I would say it is unethical not to be doing something about it or at least one thing. Even if that is donating $10, though that might not be the best way.

I really believe many people in the United States for example honestly do not realize the direct connection between the way they live, and the suffering of those in the Third World. Many might be cynical and say, "Well their just fat Ameircans turning a blind eye." Though if you think about it the Media is complicit in hiding many images of what is happening in foreign countries.

A good reference point that has been turning my mind lately is this. I personally, and many people here support and like President Obama. I volunteered on the campaign. Is it unethical that he is not calling out the corrupt multinationals more? Or telling the Presidents of the African countries to clean up? He did on his visit to Kenya speak against corruption I understand.

How much action is required to be moral about it?

I know I am a member of some active groups about this, but am I doing enough?

I think the best solution is activism and trying to hold the multinationals accountable through voice which seems to produce more results.

I am still trying to deprogram the American worldview and realize the global view. There is a broader mental divide here than many people realize. Until fairly recently I never REALLY REALLY realized how bad it was for most of the world