my theory (long and boring)
- Thread starter elimc
- Start date
However I see the rationalization of those acts as a consequence of the acts itself, and not the other way around. In the best case, rationalization may be their way of getting away with themselves and what they do/have done, but the act is first impulsed by the person's instincts/desires/needs.
I just got back from England, and I was going to post my full theory as it stands right now, but it is getting pretty long. I have a lot of it handwritten and it would probably end up being at least 15 pages in Word. Anyway, you've all been a great help to me and I'm going to continue writing and studying. 8)
I guess I'll post this up. I wrote it before I went to Europe and it adresses some of the issues that have been noted. I'm still trying to reconcile the gap between individuals and society.
Idealism vs. Reality:
There are 3 main viewpoints regarding the nature vs. nature debate. The Hobbesian view states that man is born naturally a sinful creature, a term known as “Original Sin.†The opposing view to this theory, by Rosseau, states that we are naturally good, and it is only our evil world that manipulates young minds into self-interested deviance. Rosseau believed in a state of “innate purity.†The 3rd states that man is a blank state, the Latin term for this being tabulae rasa. John Locke was a proponent of this view and believed that man could be raised to be anything. There are many other aspects of each view, but our level of depth is sufficient to reach my point. In the end, the nature vs. nurture debate is futile. There will never be any empirical way to show one is more important than the other because of the inability to separate the two.
My personal view is a combination between the Hobbesian and Lockean views. Certainly we are born with Hobbesian attributes. We are wired to stay alive from the moment of birth. Evidence points to the fact that infants learn to manipulate their parents before they learn to talk. Anyone who has been around young children knows that they are capable of lying, stealing, and cheating to get what they want. The other view (Lockean) allows infants to be trained to suppress their self-centered wishes for the good of the system, whether it is a daycare, playground, or other. All cultures teach their children what is “right†and “wrong,†and each culture does it differently. Problems can arise when 2 different cultures morals clash. Killing infants in one society may be considered morally wrong while it is considered appropriate or even necessary in other societies for the good of the whole.
Ethnocentrism is defined by dictionary.com as the tendency to evaluate groups according to the values and standards of ones own ethnic group, especially with the conviction that one’s own ethnic group is superior to the other groups. Ethnocentrism was once widely hailed with European expansionism. Spanish conquistadors searching for gold in the America’s made a large scale effort to convert the “heathens†to the Spaniards superior lifestyle. Much of this extreme form of ethnocentrism resulted in millions of deaths.
Presently there are more culture clashes than ever before. TVs beam stereotypes around the world at the speed of light. You can reach any major city by air in less than 24 hours. Globalization has resulted in products from the poorest parts of the world making their way to the richest parts of the world of the world and vice versa. It is another example of a massive scale of movement outside the hands of any one individual’s control. Even in formally unified cultures, the inevitable rise of stratification due to growth has compelled subcultures to diversify. In the US, crossing the street in some cities is like stepping into a new country with different customs, rituals, dress, language, and morals.
A new way of living evolved to replace the inevitable clashes that judgmental ethnocentrism assumes. At the beginning of the 20th century, Einstein quantified relativism by saying that E = MC^2. In the physical world, this simple equation shows that the speed of light remains constant no matter your position or speed in the universe. It also introduces some puzzling problems. For instance, the watch of one going half the speed of light would proceed to tick normally to that observer. A stationary observer, would also see his watch tick normally, however, when both observers compared watches, their times would be different. Relativism allows 2 different observers to see one thing and come up with 2 different results that are both correct. Moral Relativism is the idea that we should observe an act as morally right if it is permitted by the conventions of its society. Everything is relative, including morals. Idealistically, moral relativism allows us to live with other cultures in harmony while still maintaining our own worldviews. It is much fairer than ethnocentrism because it does not impose outside standards on a group or culture. It also has an intrinsic sense of humbleness because there is not the assumption that one culture is superior to another.
This does not mean that moral relativism has no issues in the real world. If the Ku Klux Klan suddenly started to lynch minorities, extreme relativists would have to sit back with passive acceptance of the warped rationalizations of the KKK. This is clearly not an acceptable way to have a country run. Pragmatics dispense with the whole system of right and wrong to look at all of the available finite options. A decision would be made with the concern of others actions, others actions in response to ones actions, previous experience in the matter, and any other variables involved. From there, an attempt to make the most practical solution could be reached. Another concern concerning moral relativism occurs when a single individual part of 2 cultures. What should a pacifist do when asked to fight for their country? By now I hope you can see that the relativist viewpoint would be no help. The practical perspective would again take all available decisions into account. In this case, would it be the most practical to migrate to a new country, dispense with pacifism, desert the military, or any other available options that may come up?
There are more cases where relativism fails; for instance, any system where there is moral confusion or lack of institution to enforce morals. When Sadam Hussein fell from power in Gulf War 2 Baghdad became anarchy. The resulting situation brought Hobbesian characteristics out in many individuals who merely wanted to survive. Relativism in this situation would only invite confusion. Meanwhile, those following the Principle of Practicality would be able to adapt to the changing moral situation and take a more ethnocentric approach to stay alive. Considering the lack of an organized institution to enforce rules, stealing water may be your most practical way of staying alive.
So what does all of this mean to the state? If there are no morals, then where do we draw the line on what is and what is not acceptable? Clearly there is a need for norms in order for a society to operate functionally. I see the state operating on the Principle of Practicality to a great degree. Certainly there are individuals who operate on ideals in all governments, however their opinions are generally muffled by bureaucracy. In general, the states’ instinctive goal is to get power or at least maintain it. Without practical ideas, the state loses its’ grip on power. For instance, all successful states realize that it is constructive to have a punishment for homicide. The methods and means vary from state to state, but the result is the expression that the state heads do not condone homicide. The finite list of reactions to capital murder was determined by the state. States which fail to employ rational ideas generally implode. The result is states which have reasonably rational laws that balance the need between happiness and order.
Idealism vs. Reality:
There are 3 main viewpoints regarding the nature vs. nature debate. The Hobbesian view states that man is born naturally a sinful creature, a term known as “Original Sin.†The opposing view to this theory, by Rosseau, states that we are naturally good, and it is only our evil world that manipulates young minds into self-interested deviance. Rosseau believed in a state of “innate purity.†The 3rd states that man is a blank state, the Latin term for this being tabulae rasa. John Locke was a proponent of this view and believed that man could be raised to be anything. There are many other aspects of each view, but our level of depth is sufficient to reach my point. In the end, the nature vs. nurture debate is futile. There will never be any empirical way to show one is more important than the other because of the inability to separate the two.
My personal view is a combination between the Hobbesian and Lockean views. Certainly we are born with Hobbesian attributes. We are wired to stay alive from the moment of birth. Evidence points to the fact that infants learn to manipulate their parents before they learn to talk. Anyone who has been around young children knows that they are capable of lying, stealing, and cheating to get what they want. The other view (Lockean) allows infants to be trained to suppress their self-centered wishes for the good of the system, whether it is a daycare, playground, or other. All cultures teach their children what is “right†and “wrong,†and each culture does it differently. Problems can arise when 2 different cultures morals clash. Killing infants in one society may be considered morally wrong while it is considered appropriate or even necessary in other societies for the good of the whole.
Ethnocentrism is defined by dictionary.com as the tendency to evaluate groups according to the values and standards of ones own ethnic group, especially with the conviction that one’s own ethnic group is superior to the other groups. Ethnocentrism was once widely hailed with European expansionism. Spanish conquistadors searching for gold in the America’s made a large scale effort to convert the “heathens†to the Spaniards superior lifestyle. Much of this extreme form of ethnocentrism resulted in millions of deaths.
Presently there are more culture clashes than ever before. TVs beam stereotypes around the world at the speed of light. You can reach any major city by air in less than 24 hours. Globalization has resulted in products from the poorest parts of the world making their way to the richest parts of the world of the world and vice versa. It is another example of a massive scale of movement outside the hands of any one individual’s control. Even in formally unified cultures, the inevitable rise of stratification due to growth has compelled subcultures to diversify. In the US, crossing the street in some cities is like stepping into a new country with different customs, rituals, dress, language, and morals.
A new way of living evolved to replace the inevitable clashes that judgmental ethnocentrism assumes. At the beginning of the 20th century, Einstein quantified relativism by saying that E = MC^2. In the physical world, this simple equation shows that the speed of light remains constant no matter your position or speed in the universe. It also introduces some puzzling problems. For instance, the watch of one going half the speed of light would proceed to tick normally to that observer. A stationary observer, would also see his watch tick normally, however, when both observers compared watches, their times would be different. Relativism allows 2 different observers to see one thing and come up with 2 different results that are both correct. Moral Relativism is the idea that we should observe an act as morally right if it is permitted by the conventions of its society. Everything is relative, including morals. Idealistically, moral relativism allows us to live with other cultures in harmony while still maintaining our own worldviews. It is much fairer than ethnocentrism because it does not impose outside standards on a group or culture. It also has an intrinsic sense of humbleness because there is not the assumption that one culture is superior to another.
This does not mean that moral relativism has no issues in the real world. If the Ku Klux Klan suddenly started to lynch minorities, extreme relativists would have to sit back with passive acceptance of the warped rationalizations of the KKK. This is clearly not an acceptable way to have a country run. Pragmatics dispense with the whole system of right and wrong to look at all of the available finite options. A decision would be made with the concern of others actions, others actions in response to ones actions, previous experience in the matter, and any other variables involved. From there, an attempt to make the most practical solution could be reached. Another concern concerning moral relativism occurs when a single individual part of 2 cultures. What should a pacifist do when asked to fight for their country? By now I hope you can see that the relativist viewpoint would be no help. The practical perspective would again take all available decisions into account. In this case, would it be the most practical to migrate to a new country, dispense with pacifism, desert the military, or any other available options that may come up?
There are more cases where relativism fails; for instance, any system where there is moral confusion or lack of institution to enforce morals. When Sadam Hussein fell from power in Gulf War 2 Baghdad became anarchy. The resulting situation brought Hobbesian characteristics out in many individuals who merely wanted to survive. Relativism in this situation would only invite confusion. Meanwhile, those following the Principle of Practicality would be able to adapt to the changing moral situation and take a more ethnocentric approach to stay alive. Considering the lack of an organized institution to enforce rules, stealing water may be your most practical way of staying alive.
So what does all of this mean to the state? If there are no morals, then where do we draw the line on what is and what is not acceptable? Clearly there is a need for norms in order for a society to operate functionally. I see the state operating on the Principle of Practicality to a great degree. Certainly there are individuals who operate on ideals in all governments, however their opinions are generally muffled by bureaucracy. In general, the states’ instinctive goal is to get power or at least maintain it. Without practical ideas, the state loses its’ grip on power. For instance, all successful states realize that it is constructive to have a punishment for homicide. The methods and means vary from state to state, but the result is the expression that the state heads do not condone homicide. The finite list of reactions to capital murder was determined by the state. States which fail to employ rational ideas generally implode. The result is states which have reasonably rational laws that balance the need between happiness and order.
