(no subject)

[sophiaserpentia]

The past few days my thoughts have been on the matter of ethical relativism. This is the idea that ethics are partially or entirely "subjective," or variable from one person to the next.

I am not an ethical relativist. That is to say, I believe that no matter what approach and logic we start with, we should end up with a fairly consistent core set of ethical principles. The details may vary from one system to the next, but I think that most people, and most ethical approaches, would recommend a fairly consistent set of actions for given types of situations.

I am also, on balance, a consequentialist. This approach suggests that ethics are "situational," IOW that there are no ethical absolutes, but rather sets of principles that have to be weighed for each situation. Consequentialism is on the whole a pragmatic approach, which makes me fret a bit, because I don't feel that ends always justify means. But this is all stuff that I'm sorting out at present, and lucky you, you get to see my thoughts and perhaps play a role in helping them formulate.

Now, consider this excerpt, which is quoted on this page on ethical relativism:

We might suppose that in the matter of taking life all peoples would agree on condemnation. On the contrary, in the matter of homicide, it may be held that one kills by custom his two children, or that a husband has a right of life and death over his wife or that it is the duty of the child to kill his parents before they are old. It may be the case that those are killed who steal fowl, or who cut their upper teeth first, or who are born on Wednesday. Among some peoples, a person suffers torment at having caused an accidental death; among others, it is a matter of no consequence. Suicide may also be a light matter, the recourse of anyone who has suffered some slight rebuff, an act that constantly occurs in a tribe. It may be the highest and noblest act a wise man can perform. The very tale of it, on the other hand, may be a matter for incredulous mirth, and the act itself, impossible to conceive as human possibility. Or it may be a crime punishable by law, or regarded as a sin against the gods. (Ruth Benedict, Patterns of Culture, pp. 45-46)

I'm not sure from the context whether or not Benedict's examples given above are actually to be found, or are simply illustrative. But in either case my thought is that societies where homicide has been more acceptable (probably considered akin to euthanasia) are not the ones which have succeeded; is this a coincidence, or could it be the case that in the long run or on the average, societies with a more "sound" set of ethics tend to prevail? I know I'm getting into shaky territory there, but I am not convinced for example that military might has always prevailed.

Comments

Define "succeeded" for me?

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

But in either case my thought is that societies where homicide has been more acceptable (probably considered akin to euthanasia) are not the ones which have succeeded; is this a coincidence, or could it be the case that in the long run or on the average, societies with a more "sound" set of ethics tend to prevail?

China is one of the (if not THE) oldest societies with a fairly continuous set of laws (or ethics, or standards, or mores, if you prefer) on the globe. They're not the richest country on earth, but they are one of the most populous and longest lasting. And it's only been recently (in millennial terms) that the upper class stopped having de jure power of life and death over the lower classes. In fact, they may still have that de facto power; I'm not familiar enough with the culture to know. And I know I'm simplifying things quite a bit, but I think that's appropriate for this forum.

In what sense would you say that that culture is not successful? And China is only one example; there are quite a few others, most in the Far East.

Re: Define "succeeded" for me?

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

I would consider stability, longevity, and so forth to measure success. I'm not interested so much in things like "military dominance" or "corporate dominance" as those things are empires which will inevitably fall.

I suppose it is no coincidence that ethical and philosophical systems like those which developed in China or India have tended to have quite a bit of influence on me.

[alobar.livejournal.com]

A society needs to grow when it is small, otherwise natural disaster, predators, etc. can wipe it out. However, a society must also limit its growth or it will over-run its ability to provide food.

Murder is a fact of life which must be acculturated (IMO) differently in different cultures. In a small struggling tribe, any form of birth control threatens its ultimate survival. In a culture overflowing with human resources, birth control, abstinence and abortion become sanctified. I much prefer birth control to abortion (speaking personally here), and much prefer abortion to infanticide. But all are murder in the eyes of people in a tribe too small to survive.

The old are an incredible drain on resources. Getting old, myself, I sure do not advocate wholesale killing of the old. However when children are not adequately cared for because so much money is going to prolong the life of the terminally ill, I have to wonder about priorities. Take my friend Sharon, for instance. She died of leukemia. In the process of her dying, it cost over $750,000 (in 1988). How many schoolbooks and hot lunches can be bought for poor kids for that same $750,000? The poor are unable to get into drug rehab programs while the poor old die in expensive hospitals at government expense while the doctors drive around in their Mercedes they bought from sucking the last penny from those dying in their care.

I do not speak here of answers. Only that killing is a pragmatic decision which each culture must decide for itself. The societies which kill least are those not so small they may fail, nor so bloated that they destroy all in their path of growth. But that middle ground of growth is but a phase. Given time, other circumstances will dictate other moral codes.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

My thoughts are leaning towards an understanding of morality as something which evolves over time, as a society's needs change. For example, what we see in growing agricultural society with high child mortality are moral codes that resemble those of the Biblical Old Testament. In a society of that sort, one who withholds one's reproductive capacity is "sinning" against society. This environment favors polygamy, slavery, compulsory heterosexuality, etc. An urban society has much different reproductive needs and so urban sexual morality looks much more different -- more like modern morality, or that of ancient Athens.

A similar analysis could be made regarding the ethics of something like suicide or euthanasia. Suicide is seen as an honorable option in imperial urban societies like Rome or Japan.

And so on.

I'm wondering if there's a way to capture all of these under the umbrella of a single consequentialist or utilitarian ethics.

[alobar.livejournal.com]

> I'm wondering if there's a way to capture all of these
> under the umbrella of a single consequentialist
> or utilitarian ethics.

How about the ethic of "try lots of things, choose what works, but be open to changes over time?"

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

That's not too far from what I'm leaning towards, actually.

[azaz-al.livejournal.com]

"In the process of her dying, it cost over $750,000 (in 1988). How many schoolbooks and hot lunches can be bought for poor kids for that same $750,000?"

I think this ignores the false scaricity of resources, however - also overlooks the artificially inflated cost of medical care.

When I say false scarcity of resources, I mean that in this world view, poor people, sick people, children, old people, etc., are all competing for the same tiny pool of resources. In the meantime, on plane built for the purpose of killing foreigners cost many times that amount. "Defense" budgets are the majority of all federal spending - yet those in need of basic services are told there is little to go around.

OTOH, I can see where in a crowded country like India or China that murder and abortion may seem to be a lesser offense than in a wandering desert tribe constantly at risk of extinction. But America does not have a true food or resources crisis - there is a seeming monetary crisis brought about by an inefficient an unfairly slanted system.

[alobar.livejournal.com]

I think this ignores the false scaricity of resources, however - also overlooks the artificially inflated cost of medical care.

While I agree with both your points, I still say throwing public money into medical procedures which have very little chance of increasing quality of life or lifespan are a waste -- whether it be $25,000 or a million bucks a person.

America now has a far higher taxrate than any country in the history of the world. I fully agree that waging war needs to be cut out. But even so, the public funds need to be aportioned. And a lot of spending results in some people getting rich while everyone else suffers. Each society will determine what gets spent on babies, on old folks, and on highways. There is never enough for everything. No matter what a society chooses, some people will die.

[azaz-al.livejournal.com]

"While I agree with both your points, I still say throwing public money into medical procedures which have very little chance of increasing quality of life or lifespan are a waste -- whether it be $25,000 or a million bucks a person."

The enitre medical system is screwed up. Even a simple check up costs more than many people can afford. Why does it cost $200 for an adult to get a physical, not including blood tests or unusual procedures? Why are hospital beds - not the care or anything else, just the bed space for a night - in excess of $500? Why do pills which cost pennies to make end up costing $5 a piece to the person they are prescribed to? Why are people who have almost no chance of surviving a pervasive cancer tortured with pointless radiation and chemotherapy and surgery until the very end instead of being given adequate pain medication and whatever else they need to be comfortable in their last days?

When I was in hospital hell last year, my roomate was a 98-year-old woman. She had developed complications to her already difficult breathing due to a heat wave (it was late August.) Every night she had panic attacks at least three or four times becasue she felt like she was choking to death. THe nurses tries to be patient, but it got to where they ignored her incessnant call button pushing because there was little they could do. She would yell over and over that she was choking, she couldn't get a deep breath, she was dying. The nurses in the day would tell her she would be better soon and could go "home" - to the nursing home she lived in. Her family came to vist on the same day Aaron came to see me. She saw him and asked her 65 year old daughter if that was her child - she didn't know who her grandchildren or children were anymore. She didn't know anyone. She kept asking where she was. I found out she will be on oxygen the rest of her life. After four days of hearing this woman in constant misery and confusion I had to wonder why the hell they didn't just stop torturing her and let her die.

There are "pro-life" people who sneer at quality of life arguments in favor of abortion or euthanasia. I have to wonder if they've ever witnessed people in truly miserable situations such as this.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately what history has shown is that egalitarian or socialist economic distribution does not generate wealth fast enough to compete against capitalism. I'm not certain it is more ethically viable, either.

America is at the moment operating as an empire, which as I have written in other responses below is artificially-skewed economically. Empire cannot stand very long against its economic excesses. And yet despite the many examples in history as to why empires inevitably collapse from within, it looks attractive to those in power because they stand to gain immensely in the short term.


Each society will determine what gets spent on babies, on old folks, and on highways. There is never enough for everything. No matter what a society chooses, some people will die.

It will be interesting to see if humanity ever gets this right. We seem to be heading towards an era of global post-scarcity. That is, if we don't nuke ourselves or die amidst environmental disasters of our own making.

[akaiyume.livejournal.com]

I am brain dead right now (anyone who reads my journal knows why) but I am certain that some of the examples given where factual and not just "for examples". Specifically, the case of children killing their parents before they were too old. I can't recall the exact culture at the moment, but I believe it was practiced among the tribes who inhabited the far northern islands of Japan and possibly among the Inuits too. The idea was that resources were very scarce and when a person became too infirm to contribute to the survival of the village it was a noble thing to die. The child, usually a son, would carry the parent up into the mountains (usually by this time the parent was too infirm to make the trip walking) and leave the parent to die of exposure in the cold. It was considered a noble death, and accepted as necessary by all parties in question.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Thank you. I was hoping to get input from you on this, because of your educational background. The one I questioned was about children being killed because they were born on a Wednesday, or because they were first to cut their teeth.

What do you think of my rough thesis -- that societies with better ethics tend to fare better, thus leading over time to positive evolution in the ethical understanding? I know this verges more on sociology than anthropology, but it's bound to be controvercial, especially since military might has tended to draw the interest of most historians. I'm far from convinced that military might is the best or ultimate gauge of a society's long-term success.

[14cyclenotes.livejournal.com]

is this a coincidence, or could it be the case that in the long run or on the average, societies with a more "sound" set of ethics tend to prevail? I know I'm getting into shaky territory there, but I am not convinced for example that military might has always prevailed.

"Prevail" is a treacherous term. On what timescale? Roman society did quite well for centuries, but they eventually fell. Military might served them well for a long time, and it was eventually what destroyed them in their turn.

I don't know how we'd test the idea that the stronger military always wins. We usually define winning as the test for which military is strongest, so again we're running into definition problems.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

"Prevail" is a treacherous term.

I mean in the longest term measurable.

As you say, military might provided for Rome's ascendance, and for its decent as well. That's the problem with empires. They look good in the short term, but they are only tenable for a few generations. Eventually the artificially skewed economic scheme collapses. Imperial ethics are doomed.


I don't know how we'd test the idea that the stronger military always wins.

I'm not concerned with military victory. I'm concerned with cultural prevalence. For example, even though the Romans conquered Hellenistic society, Hellenistic culture prevailed and dominated Roman society.

[14cyclenotes.livejournal.com]

As you say, military might provided for Rome's ascendance, and for its decent as well. That's the problem with empires. They look good in the short term, but they are only tenable for a few generations. Eventually the artificially skewed economic scheme collapses. Imperial ethics are doomed.

Everything is doomed. No society yet devised by man has not fallen. The Romans did fairly well though - between the Empire and the Republic, Rome dominated the Mediterranean for about 500 years. That's about 25 generations, give or take.

I'm not concerned with military victory. I'm concerned with cultural prevalence. For example, even though the Romans conquered Hellenistic society, Hellenistic culture prevailed and dominated Roman society.

It wasn't that simple. The Romans were famous adopters and adapters. Their culture naturally tended to absorb other cultures and make use of whatever the Romans found valuable there. The Greeks were philosophers, and many cultures found their philosophies useful. But their political system didn't take root anywhere but with them. So it's hard to say that their culture "prevailed."

In fact, that's true in a larger sense as well. Europe today is a melange, with a legal system borrowed from Rome, a philosophical system that still survives from the Greeks, a political system adapted from England and the United States, and a religion grafted on from ancient Palestine by way of Rome. So which culture "prevailed" in that salad?

This is why I called that a treacherous term: it doesn't really mean anything when you apply it to a culture. Every culture fails eventually, but all cutures survive in some form, even if it's only the shape they lend to other cultures.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Your points are good, and make me question the wisdom of seeking to explain the evolution of ethics in terms of prevailing societies or cultures altogether. (In fact there are paths leading away from that approach that go into some of the darker and murkier aspects of sociology that I would just as soon avoid.)

Perhaps a more useful idea is that of paradigms. After all, a paradigm shift doesn't necessarily mean that a culture or society has really changed. France before and after the revolution, for example, may not have been all that different of a society, even if its heirarchy became more ethical as a result.