The Morality Of Paternalism: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » The Morality Of Paternalism » The Morality Of Paternalism

The Morality Of Paternalism
Aplying UK ethics in Iraq?

The Morality Of Paternalism

Makarismos
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 553

Posted 05/04/08 - 03:59 AM: Subject: The Morality Of Paternalism	#1
Lately I have found myself speaking to others on this forum about characters such as Rawls, Nozick, etc – and the possibility of a legitimate society. I remain sceptical of the possibility for a legitimate societies cohesive foundation (in theory of course), but have become interested in an aside. Within one society we may use prevailing social norms to decide and reason between ourselves about what might be “right” or “wrong”. We can use this “overlapping consensus” to get an idea of what people within that society consider to be the correct way to live. Within that society we might be tempted to raise these codes above those that created them, and claim that they are objectively valid: a logical nonsense (to me at least) but a generally necessary one. The assumption of OM serves us, making cultural norms unquestionable. This is terribly useful: if greed and self serving is objectively wrong then those who practice either can be punished easily, and the group is well served. I would never argue that “Objective morality” exists objectively, but I would claim that assuming its existence has its benefits to a social group, and therefore for humanity itself. After all, a human isolated from birth is little more than an animal: with no language, no grasp of mathematics, physics, social interaction, music, culture (of any sort). Such a person is like a PC with no web link; worse in fact. Given this, what of paternalism? Can one state ever claim to be helping another state as a mother helps a child? As a father helps his son? Social norms are useful within one socioty, but are they useful in the context of interstate co-operation? Can they be legitimatly applied to parties which disagree with them? First the idea seems to be guilty of assuming technological determinism (TD): That technology proceeds in one direction from basic to advanced, in an unending series of development. If it were the case that a society’s worth could be measured by its tech development, and if that development always increased, then perhaps this would be a good way to proceed: Unfortunatly it does not seem that these prerequisites cannot be met. Technology can be different and equally advanced. Sometimes the most advanced, technically better products do not gain ascendancy. History gives us a different story if studied: If anything, it seems that societies develop to a technological point, and then begin again in a great cycle. If TD is true, then doesn’t this make a mockery of determinism? Or is there some other justification? Perhaps some moral codes are better than others, and this is a good reason – but I fail to see how such codes can be compared. My thought which comes from all of this is as follows: If moral codes are not absolute is there any room left for interstate paternalism, or should each state be left to its own devices and be judged solely upon internal normative morality?

Absolutely Relative
[Aspiring] Stoic.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2008
Location: Asia
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 164

Posted 05/04/08 - 10:21 AM:	#2
Even if there is some objective version of moral codes, who are we to say it is mine or yours or theirs? Our laws are merely set in place to provide order and a common standard. There is no universal moral attachment to which side of the street you drive on. I am neither objective nor omniscient. The only right I have to impede another's actions are when they cross my own. The only thing that makes our values stronger is the strength of our arms, deciding not who is right, but who is left. Invading a country because of their system of government, enforcing a new government, and saying, "look what a wonderful thing we have done!" is as arbitrary as invading a country for not using the metric system as strictly as it 'should'.
It is what it is.

pumkin
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 11, 2003
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 319

Posted 05/04/08 - 10:29 AM:	#3
Oxymoronism "Can one state ever claim to be helping another state as a mother helps a child? As a father helps his son?" One state or foreigh investor will claim to aid another while helping themselves to the central bank or an extension of thereof. Ask why is Citicorp's stock being diluted. Keep in mind, Citicorp is a US international bank that, like Bearn Sterns, cannot collapse. "We can use this “overlapping consensus” to get an idea of what people within that society consider to be the correct way to live." If there is an objective measurement then the consensus can be used. Consider the question do you consume too much? The question is posed in a world that is becoming increasingly globalized. So ...compared to whom in the world do you consume too much. And... does this comparison consider if you come from a culture that is primarily industrialized or agrarian, tribal or democratic? Let's assume that one nation wants to help another. Then under whose code of moral paternalism will the criteria for helping be formulated?

Makarismos
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 553

Posted 05/04/08 - 03:47 PM:	#4
pumkin wrote: Oxymoronism "Can one state ever claim to be helping another state as a mother helps a child? As a father helps his son?" One state or foreigh investor will claim to aid another while helping themselves to the central bank or an extension of thereof. Ask why is Citicorp's stock being diluted. Keep in mind, Citicorp is a US international bank that, like Bearn Sterns, cannot collapse. You think I make wooden irons of the terms? You believe that the terms I use contradict each other, making what I say meaningless? I assume you believe that interaction between one state and another never occurs after the manor of a mother helping her child: and perhaps you are correct. My observations of international politics seem to give much weight to your concerns. However what I ask is not how things are, but what kind of interaction may be considered legitimate? We might call it "help" or "aid" or even "invasion" (depending on our perspective) but what limits would we consider legitimate to place on these interactions? "We can use this “overlapping consensus” to get an idea of what people within that society consider to be the correct way to live." If there is an objective measurement then the consensus can be used. Consider the question do you consume too much? The question is posed in a world that is becoming increasingly globalized. So ...compared to whom in the world do you consume too much. And... does this comparison consider if you come from a culture that is primarily industrialized or agrarian, tribal or democratic? Let's assume that one nation wants to help another. Then under whose code of moral paternalism will the criteria for helping be formulated? This is precisely the question; under whose code? Or is it the case that the moral codes of a society become irrelevant in these situations? Does international politics necessarily become a matter of might means right? Or rather, should each nation be bound by their own codes?

Makarismos
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 553

Posted 05/04/08 - 03:53 PM:	#5
Absolutely Relative wrote: Even if there is some objective version of moral codes, who are we to say it is mine or yours or theirs? Our laws are merely set in place to provide order and a common standard. There is no universal moral attachment to which side of the street you drive on. I am neither objective nor omniscient. The only right I have to impede another's actions are when they cross my own. The only thing that makes our values stronger is the strength of our arms, deciding not who is right, but who is left. Invading a country because of their system of government, enforcing a new government, and saying, "look what a wonderful thing we have done!" is as arbitrary as invading a country for not using the metric system as strictly as it 'should'. I tend to agree, but armed warfare is not the only kind of invasion. What do you think of cultural imperialism? If the dominance of western culture does threaten a nations security, the west using its more developed media to spread their own ideals, is this not just as aggressive? On the other hand, surely communication between cultures is a beneficial thing in itself? Cultural exchange is a valuable thing, and war generally causes poverty, famine, disease, and civil unrest: traits gladly lacking from media based wars. It seems that the media may wage bloodless war for hearts and minds, but does the lack of blood legitimise the activity? I feel it does not.

Absolutely Relative
[Aspiring] Stoic.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2008
Location: Asia
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 164

Posted 05/04/08 - 04:55 PM:	#6
It is absolutely just as aggressive to fight with ideas. Diplomatic warfare can even be a disguised form of violence. An embargo which starves (or attempts to starve) a country for the 'good' of its people. The activities of international corporations which manage to siphon both resources and money from the country in the name of 'free trade'. The media based wars you speak of amount to propaganda which can undermine the people's faith in their government and even their culture, creating a dangerous combination of shame and envy. A war of ideas can be effectively as violent (and certainly more insidious) as an armed invasion and forcible subjugation of a country. We don't see it because explosions and blood make for better TV ratings than poverty and famine.
It is what it is.

pumkin
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 11, 2003
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 319

Posted 05/04/08 - 07:55 PM:	#7
Some decisions have constraints that limit the decision making process. Alternatives falling within the bounds of current moral value judgments and ethical standards limits decisions To Markarismos on his comment" You think I make wooden irons of the terms? You believe that the terms I use contradict each other, making what I say meaningless? I assume you believe that interaction between one state and another never occurs after the manor of a mother helping her child: and perhaps you are correct. My observations of international politics seem to give much weight to your concerns. However what I ask is not how things are, but what kind of interaction may be considered legitimate? We might call it "help" or "aid" or even "invasion" (depending on our perspective) but what limits would we consider legitimate to place on these interactions?" From a positivist perspective, the phrase objective morality is oxymoron-ish. "You believe that the terms I use contradict each other" Yep! You seem ambivalent. Do you have conflicting schemas too?

Makarismos
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 553

Posted 05/05/08 - 04:29 AM:	#8
Ambivalent.. No I don’t think so. I hardly have mixed emotions on the subject. My Schemas are quite in agreement thank you. Please try to stop insulting people with psychology, Pumpkin, it doesn’t suit you. And Positivism (or empiricism rather, which is all it amounts to) seems rather farcical if taken alone , at least from my perspective: it seems rather futile to avoid the metaphysical, especially by using a system of thought which must in part be metaphysical if it is to work. Still, this is off topic really, wouldn’t you agree? Perhaps you should start a thread attacking Objective Morality with Positivism? I do not claim the existence of Objective Morality. I rather said that it was meaningless - so we agree on this point I take it? Absolutely Relative: If cultural imperialism can be as aggressive as military domination, then what solution would you suggest? If we are to communicate with other cultures, how are we to do it without that communications becoming a kind of attack? Is the only safe option complete disassociation between human society’s?

pumkin
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 11, 2003
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 319

Posted 05/05/08 - 11:22 AM:	#9
Makarismos wrote: Ambivalent.. No I don’t think so. I hardly have mixed emotions on the subject. My Schemas are quite in agreement thank you. Please try to stop insulting people with psychology, Pumpkin, it doesn’t suit you. Please refrain from making psychological distortions, my response is serious curiosity over what I perceive as a contradiction, and not an insult. Kindly recall your quote, “You believe that the terms I use contradict each other, making what I say meaningless?” I was not insulting you. My insults are much more direct and sarcastic - dodo. By way of example, your philosophical acumen is overwhelming. Makarismos wrote: And Positivism (or empiricism rather, which is all it amounts to) seems rather farcical if taken alone Ayers would strenuously disagree about your comment on positivism. The debated relation between fact and value depends on the distinction between duty and aspiration, which is exploited through emotional appeals to facts, and not metaphysical appeals to the sphere of aspiration. Makarismos wrote: Perhaps you should start a thread attacking Objective Morality with Positivism? Ah, the heart of the debate, are ethics meaningless. The question is, do I want to argue about the utility of imperfect codes and intersection of aspiration and duty. Makarismos wrote: I do not claim the existence of Objective Morality. I rather said that it was meaningless - so we agree on this point I take it? Yep, its pointless. Why did you start this topic?

Makarismos
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 553

Posted 05/05/08 - 02:25 PM:	#10
pumkin wrote: Yep, its pointless. Why did you start this topic? OM might be meaningless, irrational, etc - but an assumption of what is right and what is wrong is a necessary element of human society. I am interested on what we can usefully say about the rights and wrongs of interstate paternalism: I take it you think anything goes? or rather, that nothing could be termed wrong? or do you have an alternative point of view? Would it be ok to invade a country in order to improve the legal rights of its citizens? Would you find it acceptable to topple a dictatorship in order to make way for a democracy?

pumkin
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 11, 2003
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 319

Posted 05/05/08 - 10:32 PM:	#11
Makarismos wrote: OM might be meaningless, irrational, etc - but an assumption of what is right and what is wrong is a necessary element of human society. I am interested on what we can usefully say about the rights and wrongs of interstate paternalism: I take it you think anything goes? or rather, that nothing could be termed wrong? or do you have an alternative point of view? Would it be ok to invade a country in order to improve the legal rights of its citizens? Would you find it acceptable to topple a dictatorship in order to make way for a democracy? Anything goes. Let's narrow the distances. Mexico lives in the house to your right and Canada in the house to your left. If Mexico starves her children are you going to police their actions or quit buying her oil? If Arabia who, lives two blocks behind you chops off his daughter' head for creating a myspace page, will you stop buying his oil? Or invade? Across the street lives China who keeps her children locked up in a closet when they are not slaving. There is no rule of law, so we cannot say anything useful. Term their actions as wrong. It's pointless.

Makarismos
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 553

Posted 05/06/08 - 05:20 AM:	#12
pumkin wrote: Anything goes. Let's narrow the distances. Mexico lives in the house to your right and Canada in the house to your left. If Mexico starves her children are you going to police their actions or quit buying her oil? If Arabia who, lives two blocks behind you chops off his daughter' head for creating a myspace page, will you stop buying his oil? Or invade? Across the street lives China who keeps her children locked up in a closet when they are not slaving. There is no rule of law, so we cannot say anything useful. Term their actions as wrong. It's pointless. And I am inclined to agree, but only if we would wish to claim our actions are justified as Objectivly valid. You and I disagree as to the coherence of this - I believe that there may be some way of justifying interstate moralaty to some level at least, but one that falls shot of what would be required for Objective Justification. Surely some cooperation between nations is as valuable to human survival and flourishing, just as co-operation between individuals is? I like your analogy of the world as a street for this reason. If we did act like this within a community then we would have a really bad neighborhood very quickly. Given the choice, we would rather a peaceful neighboughhood, with genial neighboughs who helped each other. In this context, we would at the very least want to agree upon some shared principals about what constitutes help, harm, etc. The trouble with a global police force/community watch would (pretty obviously) be the danger of its corruption, however the need for something equivalent seems a real necessity - especially as larger populations compete for dwindling resources. If we act from our own moral standpoint, in accordance with our values, can this action be considered legitimate by us at least? The alternative you suggest seems a little unsavory, and certainly one which Absolutely Relative would appear to disagree with. Edited by Makarismos on 05/06/08 - 05:36 AM. Reason: clarity

pumkin
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 11, 2003
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 319

Posted 05/06/08 - 04:44 PM:	#13
Makarismos wrote: And I am inclined to agree, but only if we would wish to claim our actions are justified as Objectivly valid. You and I disagree as to the coherence of this - I believe that there may be some way of justifying interstate morality to some level at least, but one that falls shot of what would be required for Objective Justification. Ummm...you believe it's a value judgment? If I get your meaning, then I agree Makarismos wrote: Surely some cooperation between nations is as valuable to human survival and flourishing, just as co-operation between individuals is? IMO, cooperation between nations is largely symbiotic and economic. Makarismos wrote: I like your analogy of the world as a street for this reason. If we did act like this within a community then we would have a really bad neighborhood very quickly. Given the choice, we would rather a peaceful neighborhoods, with genial neighborhoods who helped each other. In this context, we would at the very least want to agree upon some shared principals about what constitutes help, harm, etc. To what end? Without a universal moral code, aspiring moralists will not agrees with those who prefer to do no more than the minimal, and visa versa. Makarismos wrote: The trouble with a global police force/community watch would (pretty obviously) be the danger of its corruption, however the need for something equivalent seems a real necessity - especially as larger populations compete for dwindling resources. Equivalency is not the UN. I think the equivalent is commonly referred to as nuclear weapons, percussion bombs, smarter bigger better bombs, and economic sanctions. Makarismos wrote: If we act from our own moral standpoint, in accordance with our values, can this action be considered legitimate by us at least? The alternative you suggest seems a little unsavory, and certainly one which Absolutely Relative would appear to disagree with . Let's admit that what one considers a moral justification the other rejects in a debate about value judgments, objectivity, subjective, cognition, measurable, culture, etc... Edited by pumkin on 05/06/08 - 05:03 PM

Absolutely Relative
[Aspiring] Stoic.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2008
Location: Asia
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 164

Posted 05/06/08 - 09:22 PM:	#14
...I heard my name, been out of the loop. I may agree that it is wrong (in my opinion) that Mexico [in your example] is starving it's children. What am I going to do about it? I could stop buying the oil, but then China, who obviously could care less about Mexico's children since China has 30 kids to feed, will buy it instead all I do is lose oil. What then? Go cry to Canada? Hold a rally? Like Mexico will care. I guess I could throw rocks at his house, or have the police kick in the door. Not sure that will do any good in the long run unless the police are willing to stay there for 10 years while the kids grow up. I think we need to reject the idea that conflict of any sort against a nation is for the good of the people in that nation, save extreme cases [actually just genocide]. I do not rule out conflict altogether. If the good of our people demands a war, a war they shall have; we just shouldn't pretend that war and conflict [violent or not] will help the other nation be a better place.
It is what it is.

Makarismos
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 553

Posted 05/08/08 - 10:03 AM:	#15
pumkin wrote: Ummm...you believe it's a value judgment? If I get your meaning, then I agree Yes that’s right. The more I think about it, it seems obvious that we should at least attempt to use the moral codes imbedded within our own society when dealing with other societies. At least this approach would be consistent. Unfortunately I think this simple idea is hard to master. There are a few problems:- 1) Limited resources: the world is overpopulated, and it seems unclear to me that we are in what Hobbes (and some others) have called a state of justice. A state of justice would be a time where the amount of raw goods falls between two extremes: not so plentiful that we have huge amounts of excess, not so lacking as we don’t have enough to feed/cloth everyone. If we are within these limits, then it makes sense to talk about what is just and fair - if we are not its either a case of "every wo/man for her/him self", or "plenty for everyone". If we are not, then it really is about justice anymore.. 2) The doctrine of toleration: we are tolerant, and believe others should have tolerant society’s. If we act on this belief, and invade countries where freedom of speech (for example) is not adhered to, then we are not being tolerant. You might say this sounds crazy logic, but it seems to be what Bush and blare have done in the Middle East. IMO, cooperation between nations is largely symbiotic and economic. Yeah it is. And we need it - look at Burma, they have allot of problems at the mo that could be eased by international aid - but their government are too xenophobic to go there. Countries are symbiotic, they need each other. When though, does help turn to harm? If we count an Iranian watching Dallas (or, rather, the phenomena of cultural imperialism that this watching represents) as harm, then it seem allot of what might be considered help Is a form of harm. To what end? Without a universal moral code, aspiring moralists will not agrees with those who prefer to do no more than the minimal, and visa versa. The answer is because we need to interact with other states and other societies. Apart from the material benefits, it aids our understanding of the world to interact. It helps science progress. If we have some kind of generally agreed baseline of moral feeling, then we can move forward. I guess we must already have something . The problem is that most, if not all, people say that what we have is broken. I have met very few people who think that the world is a morally good place where everything is as it should be: Is this goal achievable? Shouldn’t we settle for the world as it is? Equivalency is not the UN. I think the equivalent is commonly referred to as nuclear weapons, percussion bombs, smarter bigger better bombs, and economic sanctions. No your probably right. While - to my knowledge - not corrupt, they do seem increasingly inefficient, burdened by bureaucracy. I guess we can have it between two poles - either bureaucratic and powerless, or efficient and dangerous. Perhaps your right, a naturalised system of threats and counter threats might balance out over a long period; until we all learn to get along perhaps? Let's admit that what one considers a moral justification the other rejects in a debate about value judgments, objectivity, subjective, cognition, measurable, culture, etc... Morals aren’t easy, or necessarily logical, but they are necessary if we are to act on a global scale: And this goal is - if not necessary, certainly desirable. I would suggest that an individual can act upon their own moral feeling, and make decisions within society about what they think is right for them. It makes sense to me that state should do the same thing, acting on their own consensus to interact with other society’s they encounter. Edited by Makarismos on 05/08/08 - 10:19 AM. Reason: disambiguation

pumkin
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 11, 2003
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 319

Posted 05/08/08 - 05:52 PM:	#16
Makarismos wrote: The more I think about it, it seems obvious that we should at least attempt to use the moral codes imbedded within our own society when dealing with other societies. At least this approach would be consistent. Unfortunately I think this simple idea is hard to master. There are a few problems:- What codes or criteria do you have in mind? Whose is the moral arbiter of those codes: a nation, the UN, or some version of God? There are more than just a few problems? Let us consider limited resources and the doctrine of toleration. When people are hungry and food is in short supply do you image them cueing up for their bag of bread as a tolerant moralists. A recount of historical facts reveals that presumably good parents will eat their children. Their moral justification for their cannibalism – survival. Supposedly, Dubai will run out of oil in 2016. When oil runs out and industrialized nations have not converted their industries to wind, solar or nuclear power for whatever economic or environmental reasons what behaviors do you expect from the nations? Makarismos wrote: [L]ook at Burma, they have allot of problems at the mo that could be eased by international aid - but their government are too xenophobic to go there. Countries are symbiotic, they need each other. When though, does help turn to harm? It may not be xenophobia. It could be pride or another issue related to sovereignty. It depends on what help is formulated, and how that help weakens the position of the nation receiving aid. Also consider, how that help enriches those ruling that nation, and how economically austere the so-called helpful policies might be on the constituency. Makarismos wrote: If we have some kind of generally agreed baseline of moral feeling, then we can move forward. What is the baseline that everyone can agree on and tolerate? Makarismos wrote: What we have is broken. And… run by a few very rich people. Makarismos wrote: No your probably right. While - to my knowledge - not corrupt, they do seem increasingly inefficient, burdened by bureaucracy. I guess we can have it between two poles - either bureaucratic and powerless, or efficient and dangerous. Perhaps your right, a naturalised system of threats and counter threats might balance out over a long period; until we all learn to get along perhaps? Indeed, I am a big fan of letting China, Japan, and South Korea intimidate North Korea. There is no reason why North Korea cannot play nice in the global sand box. North Korea chooses to be impolite and intolerable. So your quote below is well put: “Morals aren’t easy, or necessarily logical, but they are necessary if we are to act on a global scale: And this goal is - if not necessary, certainly desirable.” So like the world, we still have no workable moral framework, but a interesting pointless discussion about moral ideals. Edited by pumkin on 05/08/08 - 06:46 PM

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.