Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

I decline to hold others to my own views, mainly because I know I could be wrong.

Do you hold others to any standard at all ?

Do *I* hold them to any standard? What right do I have to do that? What right does anyone have to do that?

I feel this is not an appropriate question to ask any individual, because this is not a matter for individuals. It is a matter for groups of people. You ask about standards, but seem to neglect the "who" — who do these standards apply to? To all of us. Where "us" refers to the group of people that these standards will bind.

If you had reason to believe that your neighbour had murdered someone, would you turn them in to the police?

This is a very different question. Now, you refer to a law (i.e. a standard) that is in place, and is agreed by all to apply to all. If I had genuine reason to suspect my neighbour of breaking the standard, I probably would report them. But even then, we should remember that I might dislike my neighbour, and seek to harm them with a false accusation, in a "Burn the witch!" sort of way...

Testify in court as to what you knew?

This has the same answer as above. I would testify just as I would report. I could hardly express my willingness to do one, and then decline the other, could I?

Or would your philosophical doubt as to the possible wrongness of your personal belief that murder is wrong prevent you doing anything to bring about their punishment for wrongdoing ?

The law is a social contract, and it binds all of society, every member, without exception. It may be wrong, in absolute terms, but if it has been agreed by all, on behalf of all, then it must apply to all. If there is a problem here, philosophically speaking, I think it would be that the agreed law is wrong, and our efforts should be focussed on changing it for the better. IMO.

Or is that you wouldn't impose or enforce your standards of conduct but you would hold others to society's standards ? The law of the land ?

Something like that. I, personally, have no right to constrain others in the way we are considering. But *we* (including me! ) *do* have the right to impose mutual codes of conduct that apply to all. So I would expect others to abide by the agreed law, just as I am expected to abide by it.

And if that law compels you to inform on them for something you personally consider harmless or meritorious ( ? harbouring Jews ? Speaking a truth that has been criminalized as "hate speech") ?

Am I prepared to break laws that have been agreed by all? Yes, if the matter is one of personal conscience, but then I would and must expect to face the consequences of my actions, as all law-breakers must do.

[Sy Borg]

Unlike Pattern-Chaser, I would absolutely (knowingly) vote for someone who was immoral. It's not easy to vote for someone who is moral because the act of reaching the top in a ruthlessly competitive field like politics requires dirty deeds.

If so, then hasn't politics failed us? Hasn't it gone so far beyond failing us, that there is no possibility of remedy or recovery? What must we put in its place, I wonder...?

Not at all. What's wrong with it? It's taken us from primitive tribal societies to modern space-faring societies with fabulous attributes like general anaesthetic, hygiene, and the vast majority of people have been freed from the daily fear of being killed by predators or humans.

Why do you have such high standards when reality has never even vaguely looked like achieving your lofty ideals?

[Pattern-chaser]

Unlike Pattern-Chaser, I would absolutely (knowingly) vote for someone who was immoral. It's not easy to vote for someone who is moral because the act of reaching the top in a ruthlessly competitive field like politics requires dirty deeds.

If so, then hasn't politics failed us? Hasn't it gone so far beyond failing us, that there is no possibility of remedy or recovery? What must we put in its place, I wonder...?

Not at all. What's wrong with it? It's taken us from primitive tribal societies to modern space-faring societies with fabulous attributes like general anaesthetic, hygiene, and the vast majority of people have been freed from the daily fear of being killed by predators or humans.

Why do you have such high standards when reality has never even vaguely looked like achieving your lofty ideals?

In groups bigger than a simple family, we humans usually end up needing to select representatives or spokesmen, who will speak or act for us; on our behalf. Surely the foundational requirement for such people is that we *trust* them, and feel that we can trust them?

Your answer seems to be that we've always been ruled by crooks, so why am I complaining? You criticise my "lofty ideals", but I think this depends on the area of discussion. For example, in our hospital surgeries, we expect a great deal from the surgeons into whose hands we place our trust (and our lives). That is not too "lofty" for you, I assume?

So why not extend the same practical real-world considerations to our political rulers? The job they do is as vital to us as surgery is, albeit in a different way, yes?

[Sy Borg]

Unlike Pattern-Chaser, I would absolutely (knowingly) vote for someone who was immoral. It's not easy to vote for someone who is moral because the act of reaching the top in a ruthlessly competitive field like politics requires dirty deeds.

If so, then hasn't politics failed us? Hasn't it gone so far beyond failing us, that there is no possibility of remedy or recovery? What must we put in its place, I wonder...?

Not at all. What's wrong with it? It's taken us from primitive tribal societies to modern space-faring societies with fabulous attributes like general anaesthetic, hygiene, and the vast majority of people have been freed from the daily fear of being killed by predators or humans.

Why do you have such high standards when reality has never even vaguely looked like achieving your lofty ideals?

In groups bigger than a simple family, we humans usually end up needing to select representatives or spokesmen, who will speak or act for us; on our behalf. Surely the foundational requirement for such people is that we *trust* them, and feel that we can trust them?

Your answer seems to be that we've always been ruled by crooks, so why am I complaining? You criticise my "lofty ideals", but I think this depends on the area of discussion. For example, in our hospital surgeries, we expect a great deal from the surgeons into whose hands we place our trust (and our lives). That is not too "lofty" for you, I assume?

So why not extend the same practical real-world considerations to our political rulers? The job they do is as vital to us as surgery is, albeit in a different way, yes?

History. I'm more interested in reality than ideals.

The fact is that no one is 100% dodgy. Even wicked people engage in legitimate activities as well as their corruption. Look at the the collections of thieves, psychopaths, sadists and perverts who make up the world leaders of history. Yet, we have advanced to the point that we can explore space and have the world surrounded by so many satellites that there is a space junk problem.

All that's changed is that the dodginess is more subtle today in most countries. History marches on, as usual, for better or for worse. Yes, there's much gaming and bungling going on but here we are - with most poor people living better than royalty of thousands of years ago.

[Good_Egg]

Pattern-chaser , I should say first that I appreciate the care and time you've taken to answer the questions honestly. Even if I don't agree with the position you're putting forward.

Seems like you don't have any problem with the notion of "ought" as such. You're happy to say that people ought not to rob or murder, and ought to be punished if they do, and are content to play your full part as a good citizen in ensuring that such punishment happens.

Your only proviso is that the proximate source of this "ought" is a collective judgment - embodied in a ruling of the state - rather than your individual judgment.

But then when your individual judgment conflicts with a ruling of the state, do you think you ought to obey ? No. Then your "ought" is what your conscience tells you. You may descriptively expect the State to not let you get away with defying it, but you don't think you have a moral duty not to defy it.

Which was your justification for helping put your murderous neighbour in prison...

How am I to avoid the conclusion that you hold your beliefs above the dictates of the State but other people's beliefs beneath them ? That, basically, you think you're God ?

You pretend that you're not like those nasty judgemental moralising people. But you're every bit as willing to impose judgments on people provided you can tell yourself that they're "society's judgments" not yours. But then that notion that society is always right vanishes as soon as you disagree with the majority.

[Pattern-chaser]

Pattern-chaser , I should say first that I appreciate the care and time you've taken to answer the questions honestly. Even if I don't agree with the position you're putting forward.

Seems like you don't have any problem with the notion of "ought" as such. You're happy to say that people ought not to rob or murder, and ought to be punished if they do, and are content to play your full part as a good citizen in ensuring that such punishment happens.

Your only proviso is that the proximate source of this "ought" is a collective judgment - embodied in a ruling of the state - rather than your individual judgment.

But then when your individual judgment conflicts with a ruling of the state, do you think you ought to obey ? No. Then your "ought" is what your conscience tells you. You may descriptively expect the State to not let you get away with defying it, but you don't think you have a moral duty not to defy it.

Which was your justification for helping put your murderous neighbour in prison...

Ok...

How am I to avoid the conclusion that you hold your beliefs above the dictates of the State but other people's beliefs beneath them ? That, basically, you think you're God ?

You seem somewhat absorbed in comparison and judgement? You seem to need to categorise these elements in order of (some sort of) superiority? It's as if you, having discovered their are two 'laws' that could contradict one another, are now seeking an über-law that will define and determine which law will prevail? In the real world we live in, there is order and structure everywhere, just as you dream of. But there is also chaos and uncertainty everywhere...

[It's worth mentioning here that moral law acts at the level of the individual, while our legal stuff applies at group/social level.]

Our societies have laws. The members of our societies — i.e. everyone — are obliged to follow these laws. If they do not, there are consequences defined that law-breakers will face (if they're caught). That's how laws are framed and used.

There are also moral 'laws', most obviously held by religious believers, but (some) others feel and act the same way. For those individuals, there will come times when the secular law and moral law pull us in different directions. Then, the individual must decide which law to abide by (assuming there's no way to abide by both). This is stating the obvious, I think (hope).

I acknowledge the state — my social 'family' — and its doings. I accept that, in general, the state operates for my benefit, and I also understand the duties that come with those benefits. But state law and moral 'law' are two different things. State law even seems to acknowledge this. It doesn't attempt to assert "this is morally right", but instead asserts that if you fail to meet this requirement, there will be these consequences.

You pretend that you're not like those nasty judgemental moralising people. But you're every bit as willing to impose judgments on people provided you can tell yourself that they're "society's judgments" not yours. But then that notion that society is always right vanishes as soon as you disagree with the majority.

I am willing to *accept* the dictates of my society. I don't really have any choice in that. Equally, I acknowledge that I have beliefs, and these lead to a personal perspective on moral law. My own (moral) beliefs I will retain, regardless. But I do not expect, or want, to impose my personal moral preferences on others; that's for them to decide. As for our legal system, I accept it, and I accept the duty imposed upon me to uphold it wherever and however I can. And if I fail in that duty, for whatever reason, I expect to face the consequences. I also accept that you too must follow those same laws, or the same consequences will apply.

Society is not always right, IMO, but it *does* always get its own way. That's the thing with societies, they're the biggest kids in the playground, and they get what they want, simply by taking it. I may not like this, but I see no alternative, so I *accept* it. Society's judgements *are* mine ... and everyone else's too.