Civility: In the Eye of the Beholder?

[Kassad]

We're debating social justice in my theology class. Basically, we've got a small group of people saying that civility, morals and right and wrong as in the eye of the beholder, such as saying that people in 'uncivilized' or 'lesser' nations that practice cannibalism and slavery are not morally comparable to a nation like the United States where slavery has been outlawed.

The teacher is claiming that, without respecting moral judgment and civility, the world would fail to condemn things that are morally wrong such as racism and other prejudiced ideologies.

He is claiming that there is always right and wrong. It basically comes down to whether or not you agree with the idea that there are no civilized or uncivilized people, there are only different cultures.

I'm sure there are examples of nations that excel past the United States in a moral perspective. Basically, I am interested in having a discussion on civility and morality, what you believe on it and if you were in my place, what would you say in a discussion about this?

[kiki75]

We've been discussing the concept of justice in my philosophy class, so I've been thinking about it quite a bit.

I don't think an idea or concept is ever inherently right or wrong, good or bad. And, neither are actions. What matters is whether or not the action is progressive, whether or not it is beneficial.

The point of "respecting moral judgment and civility" is to control others. If we agree (as a group) that everyone deserves to have their autonomy respected and act as such, will we have people who choose to harm others. Just as we do now. Social conformity does not negate free will.

Anyone who claims that there is always right and wrong sounds like a control-freak to me and I steer clear of people like that. And, how does one argue civilized and uncivilized people without coming off like a bigot? (Assuming we're using the social definitions of the terms.)

Personally, I think that if people spent more time minding their own business and not worrying about what others thought, the concepts of civility and morality would not hold so much power over us.

[Decolonize The Left]

We're debating social justice in my theology class. Basically, we've got a small group of people saying that civility, morals and right and wrong as in the eye of the beholder, such as saying that people in 'uncivilized' or 'lesser' nations that practice cannibalism and slavery are not morally comparable to a nation like the United States where slavery has been outlawed.

These people speak from a specific morality, namely, bourgeois liberalism. This is simple enough to point out.


The teacher is claiming that, without respecting moral judgment and civility, the world would fail to condemn things that are morally wrong such as racism and other prejudiced ideologies.

This is a simple moralist argument: without morals, everything would fall into chaos!

And to a certain extent, your teacher is correct. In our current society, morality is necessary to maintain any sort of social cohesion.

The important question is not 'morality or amorality?' Rather, the important question is 'where does this morality come from??'


He is claiming that there is always right and wrong. It basically comes down to whether or not you agree with the idea that there are no civilized or uncivilized people, there are only different cultures.

There are not civilized/uncivilized people - objectively speaking. "Civilized" is a normative term, not an empirical one. Hence there are 'only different cultures,' though one can obviously critique practices, etc... within another culture.


I'm sure there are examples of nations that excel past the United States in a moral perspective.

This is a highly flawed statement.
1. There is no such thing as a 'standard of moral perspective.'
2. Nations could not be classified as having a 'moral perspective.'
3. It is pointless to compare the 'moral perspectives' of nations.


Basically, I am interested in having a discussion on civility and morality, what you believe on it and if you were in my place, what would you say in a discussion about this?

I have said what I would say. Please respond with comments, questions about clarification, counter-arguments, etc...

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

I don't think an idea or concept is ever inherently right or wrong, good or bad. And, neither are actions. What matters is whether or not the action is progressive, whether or not it is beneficial.

"Progressive" and "beneficial" are normative terms - hence they are moral questions.

Perhaps you are trying to say that morals exist within contexts, and not inside a 'vacuum of reason'?


The point of "respecting moral judgment and civility" is to control others. If we agree (as a group) that everyone deserves to have their autonomy respected and act as such, will we have people who choose to harm others.

Actually, this isn't logical. For if we "agree that everyone deserves to have their autonomy respected and act as such" (and 'we' is, in fact, everyone), then it is impossible that someone would harm someone else as this would be an infringement upon that other person's autonomy....


Just as we do now. Social conformity does not negate free will.

Who's talking about free will?


Anyone who claims that there is always right and wrong sounds like a control-freak to me and I steer clear of people like that. And, how does one argue civilized and uncivilized people without coming off like a bigot? (Assuming we're using the social definitions of the terms.)

It obviously depends on who the bigot is speaking to - if they are speaking to a group of bigots, then they would come off as a righteous crusader for X or Y...


Personally, I think that if people spent more time minding their own business and not worrying about what others thought, the concepts of civility and morality would not hold so much power over us.

Terrible idea. If everyone "spent more time minding their own business and not worrying about what others thought" there could be no leftist movement.

The movement of all communists/anarchists is global solidarity of the working class. This is achieved through the development of class consciousness. This necessarily involves challenging the capitalist worldview whenever possible.

- August

[kiki75]

I was responding in general. Not with regard to the leftist movement. And, I would think that ideally, there would be no need for a leftist movement.


For if we "agree that everyone deserves to have their autonomy respected and act as such" (and 'we' is, in fact, everyone), then it is impossible that someone would harm someone else as this would be an infringement upon that other person's autonomy.
People violate their agreements and ideals all the time. Nothing is impossible. And, people are not logical all the time. That was the point of the statement.

"Progressive" and "beneficial" are normative terms - hence they are moral questions.

Perhaps you are trying to say that morals exist within contexts, and not inside a 'vacuum of reason'?
The topic is justice, which is inherently a moral issue. So, I see no problem with bringing up moral questions in response to it. I think what I said was that morals exist within context, only you said it more succinctly.

And, obviously, I was talking about free will. ;)

[JimmyJazz]

Read Foucault. I mean, don't, for the love of god, but if you really want the answer to your question, then do.

[Kassad]

This is a highly flawed statement.
1. There is no such thing as a 'standard of moral perspective.'
2. Nations could not be classified as having a 'moral perspective.'
3. It is pointless to compare the 'moral perspectives' of nations.


So, through this logic, would it be impossible to criticize the National Socialist regime in Germany and its genocide? Can we not observe that from a 'moral' perspective and say that it was wrong? Or slavery during the earlier days of the United States. Can we not say that was morally wrong? If not, how can you judge it as right or wrong?

[Decolonize The Left]

So, through this logic, would it be impossible to criticize the National Socialist regime in Germany and its genocide? Can we not observe that from a 'moral' perspective and say that it was wrong? Or slavery during the earlier days of the United States. Can we not say that was morally wrong? If not, how can you judge it as right or wrong?

You misunderstand.

You said:

I'm sure there are examples of nations that excel past the United States in a moral perspective.
I noted that this is a meaningless statement as it implies there is some sort of a moral spectrum whereby one can locate nations... there obviously exists no such spectrum.
Furthermore, the activities of "nations" (I assume you mean states, or nation-states) does not necessarily reflect the moral character of the individuals within said nation.

- August

[Cumannach]

Is the question just nature or nurture? I mean is it just asking, is morality fixed or changeable?

I don't think it's hugely changeable. I think the majority of people in any society at any one time will always have generally the same morality as any other people in any other society at any other time.

That doesn't mean the established dispensers of legal justice will always have the same morality. Of course they won't. In Czarist Russia it was illegal for the workers in a factory to expropriate it. In Bolshevik Russia it was illegal to own a private factory. This doesn't mean the majority of the people ever thought it wasn't unjust to have your own factory and wage slaves, and then, changed their sense of justice once the Bolsheviks assumed power.

This is not idealist. It's actually materialist. To say that humans are born with an inherent sense of justice, which is largely the same for all, is materialist, just on a larger time scale.

The evolution of morality I was just discussing over here;

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1348404&postcount=161

[WhitemageofDOOM]

As a utilitarian i profess an objective moral truth.

Mind you, i also only get to judge the consequence of ones actions from a "Makes people happy/suffer." perspective.

I also accept i may be wrong about this, but i have yet to find a better moral theory than utilitarianism.