Ethics and Morals: Republican vs Democrat

[Ken Carman]

I welcome the mods to move this topic if they wish. To be honest it could go under politics, or society too.

I usually don't request this, but to discuss this topic you really need to read THIS. Note: it is from a Left perspective, but I think people of all philosophies will see the value in this five page article. It shows why voting Republican isn't what too many Left of center folks believe it is: idiots voting against their own interests and societies. Indeed, I found it pretty sympathetic and revealing. Of course the opposite is also true... which is why I don't even bother with threads here at V that call Dems "idiots..." or Reps for that matter.

I do have several disagreements with his discussion. I think his analysis breaks down when it comes to the current state of Capitalism; which can be very "individual" centered, or how one wins an election which I would say the Right has command of "whatever it takes" concept. In fact, I have several disagreements with the author... but I'll let you have at it and join in when I wish.

Please note: I would post the article itself but it's so long I don't think it proper. But here's a taste...

"For my dissertation research, I made up stories about people who did things that were disgusting or disrespectful yet perfectly harmless. For example, what do you think about a woman who can't find any rags in her house so she cuts up an old American flag and uses the pieces to clean her toilet, in private? Or how about a family whose dog is killed by a car, so they dismember the body and cook it for dinner? I read these stories to 180 young adults and 180 eleven-year-old children, half from higher social classes and half from lower, in the USA and in Brazil. I found that most of the people I interviewed said that the actions in these stories were morally wrong, even when nobody was harmed. Only one group -- college students at Penn -- consistently exemplified Turiel's definition of morality and overrode their own feelings of disgust to say that harmless acts were not wrong. (A few even praised the efficiency of recycling the flag and the dog)."

"This research led me to two conclusions. First, when gut feelings are present, dispassionate reasoning is rare. In fact, many people struggled to fabricate harmful consequences that could justify their gut-based condemnation. I often had to correct people when they said things like 'it's wrong because ... um ... eating dog meat would make you sick' or 'it's wrong to use the flag because ... um ... the rags might clog the toilet.'"

Further on it the article I really enjoy his description of those on the Right using a better, more complete, EQ-like device when it comes to this topic. And it gets a lot more in-depth than even that: discussing many models of morality; so you'll really miss the core of the discussion if you don't click. This article gives us all a lot to think about.

I'm also going to include this site. I scored between Liberal and Conservative in all categories except Authority, which they both scored higher that I did. (I've always felt authority is to be obeyed much of the time, but suspect almost all of the time.) This was on the "morals foundations" test. That's as far as I got because this Mac wouldn't load the next one.

Good luck! Good morals? Well... whatever.

[Nocebo]

I'll respond to the quoted passage, as that is the only thing I read...

The two examples, cutting up the flag and chopping up the dog... the exposition points out an inconsistency in the logic of the dissenters. They both acknowledge that no harm is done and that the action is immoral. I'll explain why the dissenters' intuitions are both accurate and in accordance with the passage's very utilitarian definition of morality (an action is immoral if it causes harm). Keep in mind that an action can cause harm to a person directly or indirectly, and can cause harm in the process of being enacted or a long time after the process had been enacted.

Even though the dissenters aren't able to articulate their reason, we should not dismiss them so quickly. A lack of articulation does not rule out the validity of the intuition. This moral intuition inside every one of us has been stirring in the pot of natural selection for a while, so their could be some rational advantage for it (unless it's characteristics are vestigial... but I'm not getting into that, it's not really my point).

Cutting up the Flag:

A flag is not just a piece of cloth. A flag is a symbol, a symbol of our respect for our nation. Mistreat the symbol, and you are mistreating the nation. This would be logically inconsistent if it were not for the fact that we inherently use symbols extensively in our culture. A symbol is therefore intrinsically tied to that which it represents. In this particular case, the flag was being casually mistreated... using a symbol of one's nation to clean a toilet, instead of walking to the store to buy a rag. The negative implications are overwhelming that if one were to consider just for a second that the flag was the actual nation, one would automatically deride the action. Although physically this is in no way the case, mentally - in the realm of mental abstractions - it is closer to be the case than if the cloth were a rag.

So we know the harmful consequences of unjustifiably disrespecting one's nation... thoughtless rebellion, crime, lawlessness, etc. These are gross exaggerations this case's results - but the two only differ in degree. The action is immoral when you consider the long-term consequences of the extended reiteration of cutting up flags in the absence of any rags and using it to clean toilets. It is immoral, but only to a slight degree (which is why there is such division over the subject), because of its potential for causing harm.

Chopping up the Dog:

We love dogs because they are like us. We can connect empathetically with them. We internalize their (external) emotions, in much the same way we do with other humans. So to a certain degree, they are human - if only in the realm of abstract mental representations. We connect with them so empathetically, that we loath to see them hurt - let alone cut them up and have them for dinner. This is akin to cannibalism, a very pernicious behavior - but again, only to a very small degree, and only insofar as we regard our empathetic connection with them. Cannibalism not only harms the meal, but also harms the eater - this is the crux of my argument. It desensitizes him to the emotions of empathy. In order to cut up a dog for a meal we can easily skip, we need to severely cut off our module of empathy, repressing our need to grieve for the dog. This action harms the eater because it makes him more susceptible to cause harm to others. The next paragraph will explain...

Since the module of empathy we use to connect with dogs is also used to connect with other humans, a reiteration of this process of repression and desensitization will make us less empathetic toward other humans. Empathy is a preventative measure selected by nature to coalesce humans into groups so that they may cooperate. That is the very essence of morality, and by extension so is empathy. If empathy is unjustifiably undermined in an action, this action is immoral.

Both illustrations are very distilled instances of immorality, but if we are to categorize actions instead of quantify them (black-white instead of black-"increasingly whiter shades of gray"-white), we are forced to place these in the black category because they are more immoral than moral.



Does this mean we should outlaw both actions? In no way whatsoever! There are often trade-offs, and to trade away some of our freedom for a prospective and probably negligible degree of "less harm" would be absurd... and I would have to seriously confront anyone who would even consider outlawing these actions and ask them how much they value freedom - if at all.

[Jack]

A flag is not just a piece of cloth.

But it is. The additional symbolism we add to it is beyond the basic reality that a flag is a piece of cloth. The Flag Protection Act of 1989 was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1990. (USFlag.org: A website dedicated to the Flag of the United States of America - United States Code)

Criminal penalties for certain acts of desecration to the flag were contained in Title 18 of the United States Code prior to 1989. The Supreme Court decision in Texas v. Johnson; June 21, 1989, held the statute unconstitutional. This statute was amended when the Flag Protection Act of 1989 (Oct. 28, 1989) imposed a fine and/or up to I year in prison for knowingly mutilating, defacing, physically defiling, maintaining on the floor or trampling upon any flag of the United States. The Flag Protection Act of 1989 was struck down by the Supreme Court decision, United States vs. Eichman, decided on June 11, 1990.

If cleaning the toilet with rags made from a flag was not intended to be disrespectful ("a woman who can't find any rags in her house...", she may be poor or housebound), I see no disrespect in her actions.

The notion that the flag is a symbol for a nation is one that may not be shared by everyone. If I refuse to acknowledge that symbolism am I criminally wrong?

What part of the whole idea of "nation" is symbolized by the flag? Is it the land, the people, the political structure, the economy? Does it symbolize the ideal of a country or the reality?

I'm just tossing out some counter-ideas here. Feel free to challenge any or all of them.

[Nocebo]

But it is. The additional symbolism we add to it is beyond the basic reality that a flag is a piece of cloth.

I've mentioned that in my post, and added that it is more than a piece of cloth as a symbol in the mind. (or rather most people's minds...)

If cleaning the toilet with rags made from a flag was not intended to be disrespectful ("a woman who can't find any rags in her house...", she may be poor or housebound), I see no disrespect in her actions.

I've also mention that the act had to be unjustified, although I wasn't too clear on the requirement for disrespect; but I did claim that the disrespect was inherent in the action if unjustified (a toilet, ffs!). Poverty is a great justification, although the toilet would have to be so dirty that it causes harm to the user. (Imagine that...)

The notion that the flag is a symbol for a nation is one that may not be shared by everyone. If I refuse to acknowledge that symbolism am I criminally wrong?

I suppose my definitive statements were meant to be a statement of the majority.

What part of the whole idea of "nation" is symbolized by the flag? Is it the land, the people, the political structure, the economy? Does it symbolize the ideal of a country or the reality?

Anything attributed to the nation... the citizens, its property, its ideals. But the disrespect can be more or exclusively pronounced toward one part of the symbol than others. One may be a communist, for example, and loath the ideals but love the people so much as to spark a rebellion.

[Ken Carman]

I'll respond to the quoted passage, as that is the only thing I read...

The two examples, cutting up the flag and chopping up the dog... the exposition points out an inconsistency in the logic of the dissenters. They both acknowledge that no harm is done and that the action is immoral. I'll explain why the dissenters' intuitions are both accurate and in accordance with the passage's very utilitarian definition of morality (an action is immoral if it causes harm). Keep in mind that an action can cause harm to a person directly or indirectly, and can cause harm in the process of being enacted or a long time after the process had been enacted.

Even though the dissenters aren't able to articulate their reason, we should not dismiss them so quickly. A lack of articulation does not rule out the validity of the intuition. This moral intuition inside every one of us has been stirring in the pot of natural selection for a while, so their could be some rational advantage for it (unless it's characteristics are vestigial... but I'm not getting into that, it's not really my point).

Cutting up the Flag:

A flag is not just a piece of cloth. A flag is a symbol, a symbol of our respect for our nation. Mistreat the symbol, and you are mistreating the nation. This would be logically inconsistent if it were not for the fact that we inherently use symbols extensively in our culture. A symbol is therefore intrinsically tied to that which it represents. In this particular case, the flag was being casually mistreated... using a symbol of one's nation to clean a toilet, instead of walking to the store to buy a rag. The negative implications are overwhelming that if one were to consider just for a second that the flag was the actual nation, one would automatically deride the action. Although physically this is in no way the case, mentally - in the realm of mental abstractions - it is closer to be the case than if the cloth were a rag.

So we know the harmful consequences of unjustifiably disrespecting one's nation... thoughtless rebellion, crime, lawlessness, etc. These are gross exaggerations this case's results - but the two only differ in degree. The action is immoral when you consider the long-term consequences of the extended reiteration of cutting up flags in the absence of any rags and using it to clean toilets. It is immoral, but only to a slight degree (which is why there is such division over the subject), because of its potential for causing harm.

Chopping up the Dog:

We love dogs because they are like us. We can connect empathetically with them. We internalize their (external) emotions, in much the same way we do with other humans. So to a certain degree, they are human - if only in the realm of abstract mental representations. We connect with them so empathetically, that we loath to see them hurt - let alone cut them up and have them for dinner. This is akin to cannibalism, a very pernicious behavior - but again, only to a very small degree, and only insofar as we regard our empathetic connection with them. Cannibalism not only harms the meal, but also harms the eater - this is the crux of my argument. It desensitizes him to the emotions of empathy. In order to cut up a dog for a meal we can easily skip, we need to severely cut off our module of empathy, repressing our need to grieve for the dog. This action harms the eater because it makes him more susceptible to cause harm to others. The next paragraph will explain...

Since the module of empathy we use to connect with dogs is also used to connect with other humans, a reiteration of this process of repression and desensitization will make us less empathetic toward other humans. Empathy is a preventative measure selected by nature to coalesce humans into groups so that they may cooperate. That is the very essence of morality, and by extension so is empathy. If empathy is unjustifiably undermined in an action, this action is immoral.

Both illustrations are very distilled instances of immorality, but if we are to categorize actions instead of quantify them (black-white instead of black-"increasingly whiter shades of gray"-white), we are forced to place these in the black category because they are more immoral than moral.



Does this mean we should outlaw both actions? In no way whatsoever! There are often trade-offs, and to trade away some of our freedom for a prospective and probably negligible degree of "less harm" would be absurd... and I would have to seriously confront anyone who would even consider outlawing these actions and ask them how much they value freedom - if at all.

Depending on the circumstances I would consider both acts either immoral or marginally moral. The "why" is far more important than the act. Since no one knows about the flag, and if there is a rationale reason for it... even to express one's anger rather than go out and assassinate a leader, or burn down a public building, or walk into a UU church and kack members of that church, then I would say the flag hack would be a more of a moral act than the other options.

(Note: my own example probably provides enough evidence that the person might want to seek help. I suppose I should have just said, "hurt someone." Somebody so enraged that they have to hack up a flag to prevent themselves from putting a bullet through Bush, for example, has issues that go far beyond our discussion about a symbol, or just anger. NOTE: If this sounds like anyone who might read this, I understand your "dislike," but GET HELP NOW, please!)

But we differ in regard to symbols. Symbols such as the flag only become that connected if we, individually, and as a society, insist they must be. To me the greatest immorality is we care more for symbols than each other, or the poor, or those who die in a senseless war... or one being run in a corrupt way that gets soldiers killed only to keep certain politicians, or a party, in power.

BTW, I have never burned a flag. To me it is a senseless act that gives this symbol more value than; IMO, it deserves. Rallying around it is fine, if you agree with the reason, but confusing it with country and its citizens is a form of animism and object worship that seems to border on mental illness sometimes, once again: IMO.

As far as the dog? Disgusting. I have had collies for many years that I have helped save from abusive situations. We've had other dogs and cats we have kept from living on the street, usually they cone to us. But... depends upon the circumstances where it falls on my own; personal, morality scale. I don't condone it, but there are times that radical; even seemingly obscene (not in a sexual sense), acts may be necessary... unfortunately.