Morality must be safeguarded by the citizens

[coberst]

Morality must be safeguarded by the citizens

I was listening to the radio the other day and the speaker said something to the effect ‘let the market decide the value of our higher education system…and the market appears to think that our higher education system is doing a good job’.

Is it wise to allow the market to set the standard of value for our colleges and universities?

Philosopher, tycoon, philanthropist, author, and international political activist George Soros said in his book “Open Society” that as an anonymous market participant I never had to weigh the social consequences of my action. “Still my decisions had social consequences…When I sold sterling short in 1992, the Bank of England was on the other side of my transactions, and I was in effect taking money out of the pockets of British taxpayers…Britain would have devalued sterling whether I had been born or not.”

Soros makes clear that he recognizes that the argument ‘If I didn’t do it someone else would’ holds true only for financial markets. Anonymous market participants are immune from moral considerations as long as they play by the rules. In this sense financial markets are not immoral; they are amoral.

There is a difference between immorality and amorality. Amorality makes markets more efficient and without this difference such markets could not flourish. Soros argues that such an argument applies to the person who considers her or him self as being a moral person or not.

Collective values must be safe guarded by collective political and civic actions and institutions. The amorality of the markets makes it essential that social values find expression in the rules that govern financial markets.

Rules are made by the authorities and the authorities are chosen by the citizens. Morality must be safeguarded by the citizens.

If the citizen fails to meet some minimum level of civic responsibility, is that citizen acting in an amoral manner or in an immoral manner?

[DarkSociologist]

Hi coberst,

I am a little unsure of what you are asking. Are you asking if the market should decide the price of an education at a university? Are you asking if the market should decide how much you get paid after you graduate? Or are you asking if the market should decide how much intrinsic value a university education is worth?

Financial markets are a collective of individuals acting together to achieve an instantaneous acceptance of value. So the morality is actually in the hands of the individuals in a financial market.

[coberst]

DarkSociologist

I just wanted to focus the attention of the reader to the fact that corporations generally give little or no thought to morality and in this time of globalization we must guard our community moral standards. If our community considers a living wage to be a moral standard then that community must force business to recognize that obligation.


Quote: "All men, like all nations, are tested twice in the moral realm: first by what they do, then by what they make of what they do. The condition of guilt, a sense of one's own guilt, denotes a kind of second chance. Men are, as if by a kind of grace, given a chance to repay to the living that it is they find themselves owing the dead."
"Coming to Terms with Vietnam," by Peter Marin, Harpers, Dec. 1980.

[Akashic_Librarian]

You sound like you are promoting Socialism rather than the (obviously) more favourable Individualism, are you?

[cdn2wheeler]

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

You sound like you are promoting Socialism rather than the (obviously) more favourable Individualism, are you?

Clearly, fundamentalist socialism doesn't work. But also as clearly, neither does fundamentalist individualism. It's not a binary choice between a Marxist society or a one that prays at the foot of Ayn Rand.

Every successful modern society has a combination of the two, to rein in both the vagaries of an unbridled market with regulations (the FDA and the FAA are good examples of this) and guarantees on individual liberties. And there will always be a tension between the rugged individualist ethos and the socialist ethos. That is as it should be.

[coberst]

I would say that there is no pure capitalism and there is no pure socialism.

The United States is constantly trying to calibrate a cogent position that takes advange of the positive aspects of both. We try to "acentuate the positive and eleminate the negative" of each purity.

Our problem is that our citizens do not satisfy their responsibilities by becoming more intellectually sophisticated. Our citizens remain too unsophisticated to comprehend the nuances required for good public policy.

[DarkSociologist]

Hi coberst,

Thanks for clarifying things for me. When you mentioned living wage, then the thought that immediately came to my mind is that the people don't enforce it (at least not in the US), but it is governed by laws, which are ultimately decided by the people.

Now you may say that many people are apathetic and do not vote to create a change and this is true. They may feel a certain way, but lack the motivation to turn that feeling into a reality.

I think an even more important question is "what is the role of those who are 'intellectually sophisticated'?" Is it their role to make others "sophisticated" as well or is it their role to make the changes in the laws, etc.?

When I think about this question, I think about Neo in the Matrix. When he goes about to set people free from the Matrix (to make them "intellectually sophisticated"), he only chooses a certain type of person who would be able to survive psychologically apart from the Matrix. On the other hand, he does go about battling Agent Smith to protect the people.

[Brutha]

I just wanted to focus the attention of the reader to the fact that corporations generally give little or no thought to morality and in this time of globalization we must guard our community moral standards. If our community considers a living wage to be a moral standard then that community must force business to recognize that obligation.

Minimum wage is a difficult topic, because the amount of job that get destroyed by pushing for it is uncertain.

Saying that someone is Immoral for taking a low paying job is also problematic.

Our problem is that our citizens do not satisfy their responsibilities by becoming more intellectually sophisticated. Our citizens remain too unsophisticated to comprehend the nuances required for good public policy.

Who are you specifically talking about when you say "our citizens"?

Rules are made by the authorities and the authorities are chosen by the citizens.

While laws are made by "the authorities" rules aren't necessarly. Some other rules emerge from culture and it's very difficult to build culture in a top down sort of way.

[NotesMaeve]

Personally, I regard "morality" as one of the most dangerous forces on the planet. Morality stones women to death. Morality commits genocide. Morality is brutal and punishes you for trying to live outside a cast. I'll take ethics over morality any day, thanks!

[coberst]

DarkSociologist

I think that our technology has placed us in an ever more precarious position and that the more sophisticated our society is on the whole the more likely we are to make the better decisions.

[coberst]

Brutha

I am a citizen of the United States and when I speak of our citizens I am speaking of my fellow citizens of the US.

It seems to me that the laws and the culture in a society that is democratic like the US are both determined by the citizens.

[coberst]

Originally Posted by NotesMaeve

Personally, I regard "morality" as one of the most dangerous forces on the planet. Morality stones women to death. Morality commits genocide. Morality is brutal and punishes you for trying to live outside a cast. I'll take ethics over morality any day, thanks!

I have always been confused over any difference between ethics and morality. I have always considered both to be about the good or the bad way of treating fellow humans.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by NotesMaeve

Personally, I regard "morality" as one of the most dangerous forces on the planet. Morality stones women to death. Morality commits genocide. Morality is brutal and punishes you for trying to live outside a cast. I'll take ethics over morality any day, thanks!

I think of ethics as formalised morality. E.g., ethics committees, the study of ethics, etc. But it seems the words both mean the same thing i.e., the good and the bad of the things we do, and of the way we do them. How do you define them differently, Maevey? It also sounds as if you're bothered by religiously motivated morality. I completely agree. An act which harms another person is immoral.

But then what about when an act harms one person to save more? (not referring to any of the things NotesMaeve listed, of course)

Originally Posted by coberst

Our problem is that our citizens do not satisfy their responsibilities by becoming more intellectually sophisticated. Our citizens remain too unsophisticated to comprehend the nuances required for good public policy.

I think it comes down to whether or not apathy is immoral, or amoral. And I think that depends on the context of the action they're not doing. If someone dies as a result of inaction, that seems immoral to me. If no-one is harmed, e.g., someone doesn't vote, then it seems the act is amoral. Though perhaps that's not the best example, because a few less votes could result in the election of a party which launches a war which leads to many deaths. Though in that case I find it hard to say that the immoral act was committed by anyone other than those who ordered and carried out the killings.

On the topic of intellectual sophistication, is that really any guarantee of high moral standards, or the comprehension of good public policy? I'm quite sure that someone who is intellectually sophisticated is quite capable of not caring about public policy, or other people in general.

It seems empathy is required as well as some degree of social sophistication. Empathy so that one acknowledges and understands the feelings of others, and social sophistication so that one understands what is required to cooperate with others despite differences (or similarities, in the case of competition). Intellectual sophistication seems necessary only when considering issues which require a significant degree of knowledge (e.g., science policy).

Arguably any form of sophistication is beneficial, though I'm curious as to why you've focused on intellectual sophistication, coberst?

[coberst]

Mark

Why is intellectual sophistication important?

Two generations ago CP Snow authored the book “The Two Cultures”, which identified the two cultures to be ‘literary intellectuals’ (humanities) and natural scientists. He constructed the problem in this way:

"I have been present at gatherings of people who, by the standards of the traditional culture, are thought highly educated and who have with considerable gusto been expressing their incredulity at the illiteracy of scientists. Once or twice I have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The response was cold: it was also negative. Yet I was asking something which is about the scientific equivalent of: Have you read a work of Shakespeare's?"

This is considered to be the equivalent of asking: “can you read?” My point is that the gap between the two cultures today is as wide as it was when Snow drew attention to it two generations ago. At one time in the past this divide might have been considered to be bridgeable by the two cultures; I suspect that is not a possibility. I think it is not a possibility because both cultures have been co-opted by industry.

Our intellectual cities are filled with skyscrapers of narrowly specialized knowledge; all owned by corporations. We have only highly specialized intellectuals focusing ever more narrowly on a specialty that will gain high pay with bonus or life-long tenure with high paying grants.

Corporations will never allow this specialization to cease and so we must find another way if we hope to retake our lives from the grasp of corporations.

A Ritual To Read To Each Other

If you don't know the kind of person I am
and I don't know the kind of person you are
a pattern that others made may prevail in the world
and following the wrong god home we may miss our star.

For there is many a small betrayal in the mind,
a shrug that lets the fragile sequence break
sending with shouts the horrible errors of childhood
storming out to play through the broken dyke.

And as elephants parade holding each elephant's tail,
but if one wanders the circus won't find the park,
I call it cruel and maybe the root of all cruelty
to know what occurs but not recognize the fact.

And so I appeal to a voice, to something shadowy,
a remote important region in all who talk:
though we could fool each other, we should consider?
lest the parade of our mutual life get lost in the dark.

For it is important that awake people be awake,
or a breaking line may discourage them back to sleep;
the signals we give, yes or no, or maybe
should be clear: the darkness around us is deep.
-William Stafford

I have for some time been interested in trying to understand what ‘understand’ means. I have reached the conclusion that ‘curiosity then caring’ is the first steps toward understanding. Without curiosity we care for nothing. Once curiosity is in place then caring becomes necessary for understanding.

Often I discover that the person involved in organizing some action is a person who has had a personal experience leading her to this action. Some person who has a family member afflicted by a disease becomes very active in helping support research in that disease, for example.

I suspect our first experience with ‘understanding’ may be our first friendship. I think that this first friendship may be an example of what Carl Sagan meant by “Understanding is a kind of ecstasy”.

I also suspect that the boy who falls in love with automobiles and learns everything he can about repairing the junk car he bought has discovered ‘understanding’.

I suspect many people go their complete life and never have an intellectual experience that culminates in the “ecstasy of understanding”. How can this be true? I think that our educational system is designed primarily for filling heads with knowledge and hasn’t time to waste on ‘understanding’.

Understanding an intellectual matter must come in the adult years if it is to ever come to many of us. I think that it is very important for an adult to find something intellectual that will excite his or her curiosity and concern sufficiently so as to motivate the effort necessary to understand.

Understanding does not come easily but it can be “a kind of ecstasy”.

I think of understanding as being a creation of meaning by the thinker. As one attempts to understand something that person will construct through imagination a model--like a papier-mâché--of the meaning. Like an artist painting her understanding of something. As time goes by the model takes on what the person understands about that which is studied. The model is very subjective and you and I may study something for some time and we both have learned to understand it but if it were possible to project an image of our model they would be unidentifiable perhaps by the other. Knowledge has a universal quality but not understanding.

Understanding is a tipping point, when water becomes ice, it is like a gestalt perception it may never happen no matter how hard we try. The unconscious is a major worker for understanding.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by coberst

The model is very subjective and you and I may study something for some time and we both have learned to understand it but if it were possible to project an image of our model they would be unidentifiable perhaps by the other. Knowledge has a universal quality but not understanding.

True, as shown by our different understandings of the phrase "intellectual sophistication." I didn't understand how it was necessary in the context of morality and social responsibility, because I understand it as complexity of knowledge (and knowledge is amoral, though its application may not be), whereas what you've just written makes me think you understand it as complexity of understanding (which to me entails wisdom (especially considering the mention of caring) and intelligence, not intelligence alone).

I'm also not very surprised that two generations ago a group of scientists could not describe the second law of thermodynamics, compared to students of the humanities and reading Shakespeare. The humanities students have had two decades more exposure. Ask any physical scientist (i.e., a scientist who studies physical sciences, not psychology etc (though I'm sure some of them, like me, would also understand it)) today and I'm sure they'll be able to give you a run down.

[coberst]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

I'm also not very surprised that two generations ago a group of scientists could not describe the second law of thermodynamics, compared to students of the humanities and reading Shakespeare. The humanities students have had two decades more exposure. Ask any physical scientist (i.e., a scientist who studies physical sciences, not psychology etc (though I'm sure some of them, like me, would also understand it)) today and I'm sure they'll be able to give you a run down.

I am a retired engineer and nothing in my experience would lead me to agree with you.

[NotesMaeve]

Originally Posted by coberst

I have always been confused over any difference between ethics and morality. I have always considered both to be about the good or the bad way of treating fellow humans.

Morality is dictated by dogma. Ethics are a conscious choice.

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

I think of ethics as formalised morality. E.g., ethics committees, the study of ethics, etc. But it seems the words both mean the same thing i.e., the good and the bad of the things we do, and of the way we do them. How do you define them differently, Maevey? It also sounds as if you're bothered by religiously motivated morality. I completely agree. An act which harms another person is immoral.

But then what about when an act harms one person to save more? (not referring to any of the things NotesMaeve listed, of course)

Aw, sugar, I think you're falling in love with me (or trying to get me to fall in love with the heady intellectualism junk! AND IT'S WORKING! )!

Ethics are a personal choice, IMO. I decided my opinion on gay marriage, abortion, whatever, based on no dogma. Morals are based on dogma, IMO.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by coberst

I am a retired engineer and nothing in my experience would lead me to agree with you.

Oh great, completely ruin my optimistic outlook!

Quite seriously though, I assume you're referring to engineers being unclear on what the second law of thermodynamics states. I was going to say that doesn't mean that scientists today wouldn't know, but I think it's worse that engineers, who are applying that knowledge, don't understand it. Scary!

Originally Posted by NotesMaeve

Aw, sugar, I think you're falling in love with me (or trying to get me to fall in love with the heady intellectualism junk! AND IT'S WORKING! )!

A little from column A, a little from column B

Originally Posted by NotesMaeve

Ethics are a personal choice, IMO. I decided my opinion on gay marriage, abortion, whatever, based on no dogma. Morals are based on dogma, IMO.

Hmmm. That's not a distinction I've heard before... Wouldn't that mean that any discussion of morals would automatically put you in a negative frame of mind, even if the discussion was intended to be positive (because the term "morals" is interpreted differently by whoever started the discussion)? And how do ethics committees reflect personal choice?

[NotesMaeve]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Hmmm. That's not a distinction I've heard before... Wouldn't that mean that any discussion of morals would automatically put you in a negative frame of mind, even if the discussion was intended to be positive (because the term "morals" is interpreted differently by whoever started the discussion)? And how do ethics committees reflect personal choice?

*Pokes Mark.* I appreciate the challenge, bucko.

I am gaining a more positive frame of mind. I think that morality can be the basis for personal ethics, but when it serves in PLACE of them entirely, that's when morality becomes a dangerous, unwieldy force. Example: CS Lewis was a good, Christian man with Christian ethics, but he didn't blindly follow the dogma of the bible at all. He didn't go around stoning "heathens," for example.

Ethical committees ensure personal freedom and choice are in fair play, or should anyway.

[coberst]

Mark

You are correct about applying what we have been taught while never understanding it. It is my opinion that, like engineers, all college graduates have learned to apply algorithms without ever understanding them. In fact I would say that almost everyone who applies math has no understanding of math. Our schools and colleges teach us what to know not how to understand or how to learn. Our great failing is that our educational systems teach us how to get and do a job but never teach us the fundamentals of how to think and how to understand and therein lay our problems.