Moral duty

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Post Reply
User avatar
cavacava
Posts: 55
Joined: October 12th, 2018, 11:10 am

Moral duty

Post by cavacava »

Aja Monet is a poet. She presents a short, peculiar argument based on the consequences of abdication of moral duty. Moral duty is a duty (under natural law) which one owes, and which ought to be performed, but which is not legally binding.

Monet's argument is peculiar because it is presented between individuals yet the implication of the argument is that applies to the collective 'you' or nation states. Here she is explaining in brief video. What do you think?


[yid=]https://youtu.be/8Id1U8MAuO8[/yid]
User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 1594
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Moral duty

Post by chewybrian »

It seems you are asking two questions:

Are you your brother's keeper?

Do you have the right to give your opinion of how your brother should proceed if you fail to act?

There is a broad spectrum of duty to act based on your abilities, and your relationship and the ability of the person, or country that is in distress. Think of the 'reasonable person' standard used in law. Would a reasonable person think: that they should act, that the danger to themselves was outweighed by the chance to help the other person/country, that they could help, that the person in distress could not help themselves, that they might not make the situation worse by trying to help?

Should Reagan have sent in the troops to free the people in East Germany? If the answer was that simple, he probably would have. Did he have the moral right to say: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Probably he did. Arguably, saying this had some positive effect on the ultimate outcome, and people were freed in the end without bloodshed.

Should Bush Sr. have gone into Kuwait? Should Bush Jr. have gone into Iraq, Afghanistan? Are these actions morally correct, and do the ultimate gains outweigh the costs? If either did not act, would he have been wrong to condemn Saddam, or to suggest that people fight back against him? Did they, or by extension the U.S. have no moral right to hold an opinion on the situation unless they sent in the troops?

Her position holds appeal if you only think of a particular situation in which you support the person/country in distress and want action. If you examine it from a broader perspective, it seems a bit silly and way too simple to accept as dogma.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."
User avatar
ktz
Posts: 169
Joined: November 9th, 2018, 12:21 am
Favorite Philosopher: Habermas

Re: Moral duty

Post by ktz »

It sounds to me in this video that Monet is speaking very directly about her own personal commitment to Palestinian solidarity, as a person watching the oppression of Palestinians, and why she personally felt compelled to aid in their resistance so as to grant her activism and poetic speech a degree of legitimacy that it would not have otherwise.

Monet may be implying that anyone who does not assist in this resistance, including nation state actors, is morally complicit and not authorized from a place of moral legitimacy to give advice on "how to resist". I think you and Chewy have a logical case for certain pragmatic failings in this broader generalization of the idea, though there may be a legitimate case on both sides that we could talk about at length if you are interested. However, I feel that the specific instance of her idea that her activist pursuits intended to help Palestine "take the foot of their neck" does lend a moral legitimacy and character to her poetic speech and calls for solidarity that may otherwise be missing.
You may have a heart of gold, but so does a hard-boiled egg.
User avatar
ktz
Posts: 169
Joined: November 9th, 2018, 12:21 am
Favorite Philosopher: Habermas

Re: Moral duty

Post by ktz »

Looking a bit deeper, the particular argument in question doesn't appear to be an appeal to the general case of moral duty or calling for generalization to nation state actors at all, but instead is a very specific analogy targeted at public commentary that would debate Palestinian methods of resistance and advocate for non-violent methods without a commitment to solidarity and the moral platform of understanding the "foot on neck" oppression that modern Palestinians face and helping them improve their situation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psR6CHaxzOM&t=33m55s
You may have a heart of gold, but so does a hard-boiled egg.
User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 1594
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Moral duty

Post by chewybrian »

ktz wrote: November 29th, 2018, 9:12 am
Monet may be implying that anyone who does not assist in this resistance, including nation state actors, is morally complicit and not authorized from a place of moral legitimacy to give advice on "how to resist". I think you and Chewy have a logical case for certain pragmatic failings in this broader generalization of the idea, though there may be a legitimate case on both sides that we could talk about at length if you are interested. However, I feel that the specific instance of her idea that her activist pursuits intended to help Palestine "take the foot of their neck" does lend a moral legitimacy and character to her poetic speech and calls for solidarity that may otherwise be missing.
I think both sides have been victims and aggressors along the way, and it is very messy. Arguing that resistance should be non-violent is not only morally correct (or at least not immoral), but pragmatic. Freedom has been won in the past through non-violent methods, and it seems to be a stalemate with current methods. The truth is a stronger weapon than a rock.

Here is a great example of morally correct methods, eloquence, truth and ultimate victory (not instant, total victory, but significant and lasting progress):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvG5YUjvUyk

^No name-calling, no spin, no violent attacks... Am I wrong to celebrate this man and his words and his actions as an example of how others might move forward in other places? Am I wrong to say or think that they should emulate him if they want a better chance to win? If their position is in fact correct, these methods can work. I am not unworthy of holding this opinion because I am not out there throwing rocks, or because I might think there are two sides to this issue.

Here is an example of an ineffective and morally questionable strategy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMT0JulZRQ8

^If they are in fact morally correct, their actions degrade their position in the minds of others, and prevent the integration they ostensibly seek. If what they seek is only to annihilate their enemy, then they should expect a fight in return, and certainly should not be surprised that they are not given the key to the city. Especially in the case of a stronger enemy, how is progress to be made in this way?
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."
User avatar
ktz
Posts: 169
Joined: November 9th, 2018, 12:21 am
Favorite Philosopher: Habermas

Re: Moral duty

Post by ktz »

chewybrian wrote: November 29th, 2018, 11:08 am
ktz wrote: November 29th, 2018, 9:12 am
Monet may be implying that anyone who does not assist in this resistance, including nation state actors, is morally complicit and not authorized from a place of moral legitimacy to give advice on "how to resist". I think you and Chewy have a logical case for certain pragmatic failings in this broader generalization of the idea, though there may be a legitimate case on both sides that we could talk about at length if you are interested. However, I feel that the specific instance of her idea that her activist pursuits intended to help Palestine "take the foot of their neck" does lend a moral legitimacy and character to her poetic speech and calls for solidarity that may otherwise be missing.
I think both sides have been victims and aggressors along the way, and it is very messy. Arguing that resistance should be non-violent is not only morally correct (or at least not immoral), but pragmatic. Freedom has been won in the past through non-violent methods, and it seems to be a stalemate with current methods. The truth is a stronger weapon than a rock.

Here is a great example of morally correct methods, eloquence, truth and ultimate victory (not instant, total victory, but significant and lasting progress):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvG5YUjvUyk

^No name-calling, no spin, no violent attacks... Am I wrong to celebrate this man and his words and his actions as an example of how others might move forward in other places? Am I wrong to say or think that they should emulate him if they want a better chance to win? If their position is in fact correct, these methods can work. I am not unworthy of holding this opinion because I am not out there throwing rocks, or because I might think there are two sides to this issue.
I agree with this in principle, but in practice civil disobedience has entered a dark period in its history. The techniques of civil disobedience works only when you have a commitment freedom of speech, and an educated and sympathetic populace/international community with the capacity for solidarity and cosmopolitan ideals. Some examples of the limits of modern effectiveness in civil disobedience in adverse political environments include 1989's Tiananmen Square in China, Assad's reaction to protests in Syria as well as the subsequent military coups in Egypt and other Arab Spring participants, and the effective media campaign that destroyed the Occupy movement. Civil disobedience is not a silver bullet.

Israel has a record of detaining and even torturing activists and civil disobedience leaders, including a sixteen-year-old Palestinian girl protesting the murder of her fourteen-year-old sister: https://www.amnesty.org/en/get-involved ... ed-tamimi/

Can you see why civil disobedience may not be the preferred demonstration method of choice? In these types of situations, there may be alternate non-violent means of effecting change, but I can't blame the average citizen trapped in this kind of situation for feeling hopeless and lashing out in violence.
Here is an example of an ineffective and morally questionable strategy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMT0JulZRQ8

^If they are in fact morally correct, their actions degrade their position in the minds of others, and prevent the integration they ostensibly seek. If what they seek is only to annihilate their enemy, then they should expect a fight in return, and certainly should not be surprised that they are not given the key to the city. Especially in the case of a stronger enemy, how is progress to be made in this way?
I agree that such displays are largely ineffective and counterproductive. Monet's concern as I understand it is primarily with the rescinding of moral legitimacy based on videos and activities like this one, saying we ought to sympathize with any individual who has a "foot on their neck". Sure, there are bad actors like Hamas and the PLA, but to use these groups to paint the entire Palestinian people with Chomskian depictions of terrorists and insurgents is akin to denying the cause of MLK because the same cause was shared by Malcolm X.

The Gaza Strip has 8 refugee camps and 1,221,110 refugees. If you are a Palestinian civilian, you are subject to Israel randomly destroying your house to make room for their residential expansions. Palestinians have no access to international travel or legitimate higher education, and most appallingly civilian targets are subject to random bombing and assassinations. As previously mentioned participants in civil disobedience are subject to indefinite detention and torture. While in principle I am in agreement that non-violence is the preferred method of resistance, and in some cases it has been used to great effect for Palestinian causes, I can understand over the course of an occupation period of 50 years why some would eschew Thoreau in favor of Robert the Bruce.
You may have a heart of gold, but so does a hard-boiled egg.
User avatar
ktz
Posts: 169
Joined: November 9th, 2018, 12:21 am
Favorite Philosopher: Habermas

Re: Moral duty

Post by ktz »

I should add that from what I am reading, the Palestinian government also engages in detention and torture, so there's little moral legitimacy to be found on either side of the aisle here. Ultimately the whole situation appears to an outsider like me to be a hellish travesty, and I hope some peaceful resolution can be found in the future.
You may have a heart of gold, but so does a hard-boiled egg.
barata
Posts: 22
Joined: November 9th, 2018, 1:10 pm

Re: Moral duty

Post by barata »

our moral duty is to eat, sleep, have sex like anything and than die.
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Moral duty

Post by Hereandnow »

There is a point embedded in this: If the foot is on YOUR neck, then the ethical takes on a completely new dimension; it becomes suffering beyond the context of judgment, judgment that is defined by restraint and well tempered thinking. We think ethically from the armchair, as a politician with an agenda would, or you or I would if called upon to consider. But no matter how you might rationalize oppression, when then oppression is upon you, and they have lighted up a cross on YOUR front yard, thrown YOU into a nightmare of existence, much of what is thoughtful ethics becomes annihilated. And judgment from the OUTSIDE of this becomes irrelevant, because these institutions have become suspended.
User avatar
cavacava
Posts: 55
Joined: October 12th, 2018, 11:10 am

Re: Moral duty

Post by cavacava »

ktz wrote: November 29th, 2018, 12:25 pm
chewybrian wrote: November 29th, 2018, 11:08 am

I think both sides have been victims and aggressors along the way, and it is very messy. Arguing that resistance should be non-violent is not only morally correct (or at least not immoral), but pragmatic. Freedom has been won in the past through non-violent methods, and it seems to be a stalemate with current methods. The truth is a stronger weapon than a rock.

Here is a great example of morally correct methods, eloquence, truth and ultimate victory (not instant, total victory, but significant and lasting progress):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvG5YUjvUyk

^No name-calling, no spin, no violent attacks... Am I wrong to celebrate this man and his words and his actions as an example of how others might move forward in other places? Am I wrong to say or think that they should emulate him if they want a better chance to win? If their position is in fact correct, these methods can work. I am not unworthy of holding this opinion because I am not out there throwing rocks, or because I might think there are two sides to this issue.
I agree with this in principle, but in practice civil disobedience has entered a dark period in its history. The techniques of civil disobedience works only when you have a commitment freedom of speech, and an educated and sympathetic populace/international community with the capacity for solidarity and cosmopolitan ideals. Some examples of the limits of modern effectiveness in civil disobedience in adverse political environments include 1989's Tiananmen Square in China, Assad's reaction to protests in Syria as well as the subsequent military coups in Egypt and other Arab Spring participants, and the effective media campaign that destroyed the Occupy movement. Civil disobedience is not a silver bullet.

Israel has a record of detaining and even torturing activists and civil disobedience leaders, including a sixteen-year-old Palestinian girl protesting the murder of her fourteen-year-old sister: https://www.amnesty.org/en/get-involved ... ed-tamimi/

Can you see why civil disobedience may not be the preferred demonstration method of choice? In these types of situations, there may be alternate non-violent means of effecting change, but I can't blame the average citizen trapped in this kind of situation for feeling hopeless and lashing out in violence.
Here is an example of an ineffective and morally questionable strategy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMT0JulZRQ8

^If they are in fact morally correct, their actions degrade their position in the minds of others, and prevent the integration they ostensibly seek. If what they seek is only to annihilate their enemy, then they should expect a fight in return, and certainly should not be surprised that they are not given the key to the city. Especially in the case of a stronger enemy, how is progress to be made in this way?
I agree that such displays are largely ineffective and counterproductive. Monet's concern as I understand it is primarily with the rescinding of moral legitimacy based on videos and activities like this one, saying we ought to sympathize with any individual who has a "foot on their neck". Sure, there are bad actors like Hamas and the PLA, but to use these groups to paint the entire Palestinian people with Chomskian depictions of terrorists and insurgents is akin to denying the cause of MLK because the same cause was shared by Malcolm X.

The Gaza Strip has 8 refugee camps and 1,221,110 refugees. If you are a Palestinian civilian, you are subject to Israel randomly destroying your house to make room for their residential expansions. Palestinians have no access to international travel or legitimate higher education, and most appallingly civilian targets are subject to random bombing and assassinations. As previously mentioned participants in civil disobedience are subject to indefinite detention and torture. While in principle I am in agreement that non-violence is the preferred method of resistance, and in some cases it has been used to great effect for Palestinian causes, I can understand over the course of an occupation period of 50 years why some would eschew Thoreau in favor of Robert the Bruce.
I think Monet's remark is also aimed at the Black situation in the United States, which is why she started off with the choice between Malcom X and MLK. Malcom X' wanted black people to be willing and able to protect their own rights and their dignity as free people, from attack. MLK's program used non-violent civil disobedience and protests to convey to the white majority the hopelessly unfair character of the Black's situation in America.

She seems, at least here, to be more in favor of Malcom X's approach, and from a pragmatic point of view the Civil Rights protests of the mid 1960's and now America's recent inner city problems, riots and violent protests have had the practical consequence of moving the Elite to take actions to try to accommodate those who are protesting and suffering,

I think she may be aiming her comments more towards the apathetic suggesting that these people have abdicated their their moral duty (if Moral duty is a natural law) by not speaking up for the oppressed. People who know that the killing of over 200 people, and the injuring of 14,000 in Gaza is wrong but who do not want to speak up about it.
She may also be suggesting, like Ta-Nehisi-Coates, that any system that preaches non-violence to the violent by means of violence has lost its moral ground.
Alias
Posts: 3119
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Moral duty

Post by Alias »

Isn't this just the same argument as not judging another until you've walked a mile in their shoes?

What would you do if --- imagine various kinds of danger, duress, suffering, oppression and hardship that might be inflicted on you. Each circumstance is different, and each one's ability to act is different from every other's. Certainly, if I were kidnapped by a madman and tied up in a basement, I wouldn't be too fastidious about the methods I tried to get out. Nor would I welcome criticism from the safe and comfortable sidelines. (Especially if they themselves employ similar methods to achieve less laudable ends.)
She's quite right: we don't have the moral basis to tell Palestinians how they should behave in their circumstances.
We know they've been asking the nations that got them into this situation for relief long enough to understand that it's never coming.

There are different ways that a bad international situation can be addressed. Military intervention is the least morally sanitary. But our western nations are not without other kinds of power - economic, primarily - that they could exert, and would, if the electorate put enough pressure on their governments. So, yes, we are all complicit through inaction, indifference, convenience and prejudice.
Post Reply

Return to “Ethics and Morality”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021