|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 8:28 pm
I tried this in ED once, but the thread dropped out of sight like a rock. I'm hoping to get a little more mileage out of it in this guild.
When is it moral for a group to do that which is not moral for an individual member of that group to do alone?
Share your thoughts! (23 bonus points if you can tell me where that question came from.)
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 8:44 pm
Well, I must decline the points. I honestly have no idea where that question came from. It is an interesting one though.
The most immediate answer that comes to mind is war. Murder is illegal, as we all know. The punishments are severe and individuals guilty of murder are removed from society. However, in a war we actually encourage the mass slaughter of entire populations. In that case the military is the 'group' in question. Killing seems fine when we send in the army and declare a cause.
I'm at a loss for an example outside of that, but I would be quite interested in anything else anyone wants to add to this particular thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 8:52 pm
I get the war thing a lot. Here's what I think about it:
War, ideally, is fought in the defense of one's country, or maybe in the defense of individuals in another country whose rights are being violated by their government. Outside of these cases I don't think war is moral, period.
Self-defense, I would say, is a right that an individual has moral claim to, and we delegate our right of self-defense to the military in war. So the "group" (military in this case) is not doing anything that an individual member of that group couldn't morally do on his or her own.
Even in an unjust war, soldiers on both sides are being shot at, so one could argue that they have a right to defend themselves. Given the choice of kill or be killed, I'll take the former every time and feel no guilt about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 9:05 pm
Out of curiosity then, what would be a decent example of an action accepted as moral in a group and immoral as an individual. I'm at a loss for something of that nature. I find the concept interesting to no end because it brings up the question of just when something makes the transition from immoral to moral and visa versa.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 9:07 pm
Well, to put it quite simply, my view is that there is no situation where a group has a moral right to do something an individual can't morally do.
This has some pretty unconventional implications for politics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 9:19 pm
I'd have to agree with you on the morality issue, but what kind of political implications are you refering to. I must apologize for I am not well versed in politics so I have some difficulty discussing it with any authority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 9:46 pm
First of all, everyone should feel free to jump in here and offer their opinion. This is where I see an opportunity for some wide divergence.
As far as the implications for politics, well, first of all, income taxation comes to mind.
I, as an individual, do not have the moral right to take money that you've earned to fund my grandmother's operation, or my kid's education, an urban renewal project, or anything else I think is worthwhile.
I would argue that if you accept my position on group vs. individual ethics, the government -- be it federal, state/provincial, or local -- has no moral right to do it either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 9:51 pm
Hmmm... Good point. However, I think it can be argued that in the case of the government the idea is to promote the greater good of the society, which may not benefit an individual directly but maintains the society in which an individual resides. This seems to me to be a case of the good of the many outweighing the good of the one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 9:58 pm
Then you, in effect, are saying that it is moral for a group to do something an individual can't morally do if it promotes the good of the group.
Do I understand you correctly?
I would raise the question of whether the "public good" is a valid concept, and what standard of value or agency is appropriate to determine the good, but further argument in this vein might be better suited to a new thread on Utilitarianism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 10:07 pm
I suppose I will have to re-evaluate my previous statement then, because I do believe that there is a certain good to be had in the use of publically collected taxes. I believe that in this case the good of the many truly does impact the individual lives that contribute to that 'many.' I think the falacy in this system, however, is the power certain corporations and wealthier citizens have that permits them to sidestep taxes through legal loopholes.
I think that collecting taxes is moral, but I believe that our current system of tax collection is immoral because it does allow for legal forms of evasion which places a greater burden on those who are unable to use those loopholes...usually because they're already struggling financially as it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 7:08 am
Never.
A group is an illusion, all actions done by individuals and only by individuals. We don't become a colective mind just because we are near other people. Being part of a group doesn't mean we lose our individuality. Just because there are other near-by that are doing the same actions as us doesn't mean that our action aren't still our own.
So all actions done by a 'group' are also done by the individual members of the group, and the morality of those actions are still atributed to those members.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:55 pm
Well I have only this to say and its real short but its also real simple. Its called imminent domain. This is a legal process(Or at least in the U.S. it is) That states that between the good of the whole or the good of the indivual, the good of the whole must always be chosen. As an example, if my local state government decided to four-lane a high-way and my house is in the way, they can offer me current market value for it and I can sell it to them. If I remain adamant about not selling my house they can give me a dollar, a pat on the back and promptly mow my house down. Now of course this is way oversimplified but I hate legal details most of the time. Now this doesn't relate very well except under the point of group versus individual but my next point fits better. A group is made of individuals, correct? And so a groups ethics is each individual's ethics combined into one. The larger the group the more complicated the ethics therein and also there lies more room for dissatisfaction. For any group to function there must arise a leader to lead them. For on the whole a group will not take any action that would give any other group a chance to attack them. Now a leader takes a group , however large or small, and he gets them all pointed in the same direction with the same goal in mind.That is what they call the magic of kings. The leader takes the dissatisfaction and puts it down and imposes either his ethics or the most harmonious blend of the groups ethics that he can make. If he can do this then he is called a true leader. So would it be the leaders ethics or the groups ethics that makes the desicion between right and wrong? The group will choose its leader according to its ethics but then he will impose his ethics on his desicions on behalf of the whole. Somehow I don't think this made much sense and it wasn't that short but I got carried away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 6:51 pm
The more I think about it, 'for the good of the group' sounds less and less like a reasonable argument. I mean, who decides just what is good for the group? If it is one person, then they will probably either be selfish or their decision will be affected by personal bias. I have come to the conclusion that one can find support for even the most heinous acts if one only has a large enough group.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 6:56 pm
About the war thought, I wrote an entry to the ED contest about why war happens, check it out! Its in Bookie's Journal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 11:30 pm
It's a very good point that a "group" is not an entity, but simply a collection of individuals.
This dovetails nicely with the fact that the focus of this conversation seems to be shifting a bit here into Utilitarian territory, so I'll go with it.
First of all, to those of you who invoke the "public good" or the good of the whole/many/society/etc.: Given the fact that the public, or the whole, or however you want to put it is simply a collection of individuals, how is it possible to determine what is good for each and every individual in that group? Not that I think there's no objectivity or universality to ethics, but I don't think we can reach it through utilitarianism.
Secondly, in order to determine what is "good for," you have to reach a little farther back and determine what is "good." By what standard do you judge the good?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
