Let the Right be Done
America politicians are the best experts available for evaluating the judgmental ability of American citizens. Watching election campaigns offer us an opportunity to quickly gauge the level of intellectual sophistication of US citizens as judged by politicians; the politicians’ expertise in all such matters determines their success or failure as a politician.
The father looking over the shoulder of his daughter working on her homework says. “Perhaps I can help. She says “I’m looking for the lowest common denominator. He, looking rather shocked, replied “Whoo! Are they still looking for that?
Is democracy merely the process of seeking the lowest common denominator?
The two primary concepts of ethics are right and good. In the United States we give priority to right by ensconcing detailed rights in the Constitution. Good can be freely determined by each individual as long as our good does not trounce another’s rights.
Our government, like Lincoln’s government in the Civil War and FDR’s government in WWII, has decided to reprioritize our Constitutional rights in favor of the good that our government has determined to be in synchronization with the will of the majority.
The majority seems to, in periods of great stress, give priority to the good instead of the right that was determined in ‘cold blood’. I consider such action to be a weakness of democracy. What do you think about it?
Let the Right be Done
Let the Right be Done
coberst wrote: Let the Right be Done
America politicians are the best experts available for evaluating the judgmental ability of American citizens. Watching election campaigns offer us an opportunity to quickly gauge the level of intellectual sophistication of US citizens as judged by politicians; the politicians’ expertise in all such matters determines their success or failure as a politician.
The father looking over the shoulder of his daughter working on her homework says. “Perhaps I can help. She says “I’m looking for the lowest common denominator. He, looking rather shocked, replied “Whoo! Are they still looking for that?
Is democracy merely the process of seeking the lowest common denominator?
The two primary concepts of ethics are right and good. In the United States we give priority to right by ensconcing detailed rights in the Constitution. Good can be freely determined by each individual as long as our good does not trounce another’s rights.
Our government, like Lincoln’s government in the Civil War and FDR’s government in WWII, has decided to reprioritize our Constitutional rights in favor of the good that our government has determined to be in synchronization with the will of the majority.
The majority seems to, in periods of great stress, give priority to the good instead of the right that was determined in ‘cold blood’. I consider such action to be a weakness of democracy. What do you think about it?
Since both good and right are subjective concepts I would say the weakness is the in subjectiveness of the concepts and is applicable to any system of government where "majority rules".
America politicians are the best experts available for evaluating the judgmental ability of American citizens. Watching election campaigns offer us an opportunity to quickly gauge the level of intellectual sophistication of US citizens as judged by politicians; the politicians’ expertise in all such matters determines their success or failure as a politician.
The father looking over the shoulder of his daughter working on her homework says. “Perhaps I can help. She says “I’m looking for the lowest common denominator. He, looking rather shocked, replied “Whoo! Are they still looking for that?
Is democracy merely the process of seeking the lowest common denominator?
The two primary concepts of ethics are right and good. In the United States we give priority to right by ensconcing detailed rights in the Constitution. Good can be freely determined by each individual as long as our good does not trounce another’s rights.
Our government, like Lincoln’s government in the Civil War and FDR’s government in WWII, has decided to reprioritize our Constitutional rights in favor of the good that our government has determined to be in synchronization with the will of the majority.
The majority seems to, in periods of great stress, give priority to the good instead of the right that was determined in ‘cold blood’. I consider such action to be a weakness of democracy. What do you think about it?
Since both good and right are subjective concepts I would say the weakness is the in subjectiveness of the concepts and is applicable to any system of government where "majority rules".
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
Let the Right be Done
Zink..
I agree that both are subjective judgments but does that mean that they carry no force of conviction? In our more rational modes we choose right to trump good but in our more emotional modes we reverse them, is this the result of them being subjective judgments or is there more to it? Not everyone makes that adjustment, does this mean that some people have a different meaning of right and good than do others?
I agree that both are subjective judgments but does that mean that they carry no force of conviction? In our more rational modes we choose right to trump good but in our more emotional modes we reverse them, is this the result of them being subjective judgments or is there more to it? Not everyone makes that adjustment, does this mean that some people have a different meaning of right and good than do others?
Let the Right be Done
I see that your question was directed at Zink, but... do some people have a different meaning of right and good than do others?
I've lost childhood friends over personal beliefs of what is right and what is good.
To throw a bit of levity into this, look at my icon
Truth, Justice and the American way.
Do they mention that in the new Superman movies?
I've lost childhood friends over personal beliefs of what is right and what is good.
To throw a bit of levity into this, look at my icon
Truth, Justice and the American way.
Do they mention that in the new Superman movies?
Let the Right be Done
JacksDad wrote: I see that your question was directed at Zink, but... do some people have a different meaning of right and good than do others?
I've lost childhood friends over personal beliefs of what is right and what is good.
To throw a bit of levity into this, look at my icon
Truth, Justice and the American way.
Do they mention that in the new Superman movies?
This is a post I made about these matters some time ago:
Captain Dave will under no circumstance torture a prisoner (open morality). Captain Jim will torture a prisoner when he considers such action will save the lives of his platoon (closed morality).
“The two main concepts of ethics are those of the right and the good; the concept of a morally worthy person is, I believe, derived from them. This quote and any others are from “A Theory of Justice by John Rawls.
In teleological (explaining phenomena by final causes) theories of ethics the good is defined independently from the right.
The attitude of the individual is to seek the satisfaction of desire, more appropriately it is “the satisfaction of rational desire. Many people find that society should be just an extension of this attitude. The good, for society, is the satisfaction of rational desire. The right is that which maximizes the good.
Others in society reject this utilitarian view and find that the right comes before the good and embodies a boundary for the good. The right becomes a principle that has priority over the good. In the United States the right is placed in the Constitution and each individual determines the good.
Captain Dave rejects the utilitarian view of morality (open morality). Captain Jim embraces the utilitarian view of morality (closed morality).
Morality/ethics is a matter pertaining only to the relationship between subjects and thus there is nothing objective about it. All such matters are subjective and thus relative. Religion interjects God into the matter and thus makes it a matter of absolutes for believers.
Many individuals think of the individual as constituted by the community to which s/he belongs—their value is dependent to a large extent upon the community. It is this interdependence upon the community that makes ideology so very potent. For the individual who embraces closed morality the ideological association is more important than to the person with an open morality.
I've lost childhood friends over personal beliefs of what is right and what is good.
To throw a bit of levity into this, look at my icon
Truth, Justice and the American way.
Do they mention that in the new Superman movies?
This is a post I made about these matters some time ago:
Captain Dave will under no circumstance torture a prisoner (open morality). Captain Jim will torture a prisoner when he considers such action will save the lives of his platoon (closed morality).
“The two main concepts of ethics are those of the right and the good; the concept of a morally worthy person is, I believe, derived from them. This quote and any others are from “A Theory of Justice by John Rawls.
In teleological (explaining phenomena by final causes) theories of ethics the good is defined independently from the right.
The attitude of the individual is to seek the satisfaction of desire, more appropriately it is “the satisfaction of rational desire. Many people find that society should be just an extension of this attitude. The good, for society, is the satisfaction of rational desire. The right is that which maximizes the good.
Others in society reject this utilitarian view and find that the right comes before the good and embodies a boundary for the good. The right becomes a principle that has priority over the good. In the United States the right is placed in the Constitution and each individual determines the good.
Captain Dave rejects the utilitarian view of morality (open morality). Captain Jim embraces the utilitarian view of morality (closed morality).
Morality/ethics is a matter pertaining only to the relationship between subjects and thus there is nothing objective about it. All such matters are subjective and thus relative. Religion interjects God into the matter and thus makes it a matter of absolutes for believers.
Many individuals think of the individual as constituted by the community to which s/he belongs—their value is dependent to a large extent upon the community. It is this interdependence upon the community that makes ideology so very potent. For the individual who embraces closed morality the ideological association is more important than to the person with an open morality.
Let the Right be Done
Hamster wrote: I believe that a persons views of what constitutes right and wrong are molded by our parents, schooling, the social environment, tv and media and a thousand other things.
For this reason no 2 people could share the same view point here. There are bound to be differences and that is what makes human life so diverse.
It is possible to change these views and I agree with JD...I have lost friends over things that just didn't seem right to do anymore..but then would you want to stay with people who weren't willing to change and evolve anyway?
This gets to what I mean by intellectual sophistication. All of these matters are very complex and they are very important. When we depend upon our childhood conceptions we make a serious error.
When I was a child I thought as a child, but now I am a man and must learn to think like a man. An intellectual sophisticated man or woman has taken their childhood concepts and have remolded them in to a form suitable to the thinking of a sophisticated woman or man.
For this reason no 2 people could share the same view point here. There are bound to be differences and that is what makes human life so diverse.
It is possible to change these views and I agree with JD...I have lost friends over things that just didn't seem right to do anymore..but then would you want to stay with people who weren't willing to change and evolve anyway?
This gets to what I mean by intellectual sophistication. All of these matters are very complex and they are very important. When we depend upon our childhood conceptions we make a serious error.
When I was a child I thought as a child, but now I am a man and must learn to think like a man. An intellectual sophisticated man or woman has taken their childhood concepts and have remolded them in to a form suitable to the thinking of a sophisticated woman or man.
Let the Right be Done
I agree with Hammy about our original concepts of good and right, and for some that pretty much defines it for life. For others, particuarly if they get out in the world and have lots of experiences those concepts will probably change some over time. Certainly in my case they have.
Coberst's orginal post asked if giving priority to good over right in periods of stress was a weakness of democracy. I think the weakness is more in the subjectivity itself although as pointed out some of the right is defined in the Consitituion, but even that is subject to interpretation..
Coberst's orginal post asked if giving priority to good over right in periods of stress was a weakness of democracy. I think the weakness is more in the subjectivity itself although as pointed out some of the right is defined in the Consitituion, but even that is subject to interpretation..
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Let the Right be Done
coberst wrote: The majority seems to, in periods of great stress, give priority to the good instead of the right that was determined in ‘cold blood’. I consider such action to be a weakness of democracy. What do you think about it?
I don't think "great" stress is needed; it only makes the tendency more pronounced. The minor stress of guilt prompts many middle- and upper middle-class to call for taking money rightfully obtained by others to give it to those who have not obtained it .... in the name of doing good.
Is it a weakness? I don't think so. Any society is formed of people. People have emotions. We must maintain our humanity. I believe the constant struggle is a good thing to have. It strikes balance between the chaos of absolute "good" and the dog-eat-dog world of absolute "right".
I don't think "great" stress is needed; it only makes the tendency more pronounced. The minor stress of guilt prompts many middle- and upper middle-class to call for taking money rightfully obtained by others to give it to those who have not obtained it .... in the name of doing good.
Is it a weakness? I don't think so. Any society is formed of people. People have emotions. We must maintain our humanity. I believe the constant struggle is a good thing to have. It strikes balance between the chaos of absolute "good" and the dog-eat-dog world of absolute "right".