Approaches to morality (and why Authoritarians suck!!)

Note: I posted this topic about 5 months ago.
You can find it in the philosophy forum here.
Except you can't - the changes to the website don't allow posts of this size to show.
What I'm doing here is reposting it again so people who weren't around in Feb can see it.
(Ckava, Aikimac, Topher... I'm expecting some feedback this time!!)


Part 1
There's a popular view that morality cramps down on freedom, that these rules are societies way of controlling you to their benefit. Then people on the other side are quick to point out that if we didn't keep to the moral code of not murdering and stealing then the environment we lived in would be terrible for all of us. In that sense you could say that a moral structure is freedom from a nihilistic environment.
Are the instructions on boiling an egg a encroachment on 'free cooking' or is it freedom from having to eat badly cooked eggs?

In any case, it doesn't seem to moral rules themselves that's the problem. I think that the problem is the attitude that people can take to these rules. There's a playful approach that sees them as guidelines that will generally lead to a better life and a strict authoritarian approach that sees them as unbreakable absolutes. You can probably see where I am going with this.

Perhaps we could make an analogy with another activity.
Imagine that James and Bob are both learning to hammer nails into wood.
James has a natural curiosity, tries things out, makes a few mistakes but gradually gets a knack for hammering nails into the wood in an extremely efficient way.
Bob, on the other hand, has a set of detailed instructions on how to hammer the nail in the ideal way, detailing every minute movement in the human body. He has a strong incentive to get it perfect, perhaps a threat of punishment if he fails or perhaps a large reward for perfections that will otherwise be lost. Either way the pressure is to get it right.
The idea is that they are both learning the same thing, hammering nails into wood, but through different approaches.

James has a playful approach to hammering nails while Bob has an authoritarian approach. James tries things out and devellops a natural competence at the task while Bob works on develloping a habit of following the rules correctly. What follows from here is how I state the obvious in pointing out how the playful approach is so much better than the authoritarian approach in almost every way!!


The problem with trying to have too much 'control' over your actions.
So given that we need moral rules to live our lives, the question is how to have them followed the most efficiently. The authoritarian approach looks at how we apply rules as laws, i.e. reward and punishment.
We reward people who obey the rules well and punish those who don't.
They also encourage people to reward and punish themselves with guilt and pride.
They seem to assume by default that this is the most effective way.
The thing is, this emphasis on following rules has a several downfalls:

1) It's not the most efficient way to learn something.
Studies have been done that compared two sets of people learning to play golf. The first set were just told the rules of the game, given a couple of hints and then left to explore in their own time. The second set were given a specific technique, fully detailed with explicit rules.
The difference showed when they were put under pressure - a substantial reward was offered for good performance.

Once the reward was on the table, the practitioners had the incentive to 'get it right'. The first set had no choice but to play as they had before, rely on their intuitive learning through playing about with it. The second set were more likely to try and concentrate on the rules they had been taught. However, this concentration on the rules led to a bad performance.
The point being, the most efficient mindset to playing golf involved not thinking too much about it. This makes sense because when your brain is thinking about the rules too much, it is taking away processing power from a more direct concentration on the task at hand.

(I know I should give reference to these studies but I can't find it for the moment - it's somewhere in this book but I can't remember which page!! I'll get back on this one!)

2) Law is based on rewarding good and punishing bad.
The rewards and punishments will be determined by a system.
This leads to a second problem with authoritarian morality - it encourages people to be legalistic - i.e. play the system that dishes out the rewards and punishments, loop holes and all. Such an approach to morality depends on the perfection of the system and because morality is too complex for any system to be absolutely perfect, and even if there was an absolutely perfect system then it would surely be more than a human mind could grasp.

3) Talking of the complexity of morality, it means that the perfect rule set would need to go into a ridiculous amount of detail into the situations where particular rules were and weren't applicable. Give any simple moral rule and there will be a counter example where it doesn't apply. This isn't a problem where the rule is a rule of thumb and people are free to play/experiment and work out a soluction, but if someone believes that the moral rules need to be applied rigidly without question then they will be at best confused and at worst resort to applying the rules inappropiately and in doing so committing terrible action.

The best moral rules are rules of thumb. They give a general rules that is right for most situations (e.g. do not lie or steal) and do enough to give the learner the general idea behind the rule, and with experience they'll become better at judging where this rule does or doesn't apply.
If I'd been hiding a Jew in Nazi Germany it would have been right for me to lie to the gestapo about it and if I had a hungry family and my only choice was to steal food or let them starve then stealing would be the right thing to do. These are extreme situations, but I just wanted some obvious examples.
There will clearly be countless more realistics and more subtle examples.

4) The mindset for authoritarian rule following is suppressive and stressful.
It's something that we can handle for some of the more important rules in particular situations, but if we start trying to stretch it to all areas of morality...
Karen Hornby had a theory called the Tyranny of the 'Shoulds' where we suppress ourselves by maing idealistic demands of ourselves and feel stressed/guilty/depressed when we don't live up to them.

This effect dulls our personality too. Because we are so obsessed with not breaking rules we tend to want to stick to situations where the rules are easily applicable and the unknown becomes something to be feared. It discourages exploration and creativity. This would be a bad thing even if the particular moral system the person was following was perfect and that they had a perfect grasp of it. Authoritarian approaches to morality would even be bad for perfect systems, let alone the imperfect ones that we get in real life!

Continued in the next post

 

Part 2
These flaws clearly show that the authoritarian mindset isn't a good one for morality. The jump from treating morality like 'law' is sometimes appropiate to always appropiate is clearly unjustifiable.


So why have laws and moral imperatives at all?
Unfortunately, in the real world things aren't this simple.
A person who has a natural interest in a task will likely become quite competent, but we don't always have this 'natural interest' and it cannot be forced. The fact is that while it is ideal to devellop morality in a playful way, we cannot rely purely on it. The playful way relies on sometimes learning the hard way and we don't want a person to kill someone before they realise that it was the wrong thing to do. There are some immoral actions that are too severe to be left to the person to learn in their own time.

As as result, we have social mechanisms in place to keep people in line.
These mechanisms are in place to force a minimal moral compliance in order for society run smoothly. A society that must run smoothly no matter whether it's individuals have mastered morality on their own terms yet.
Obviously our methods of coercion will depend on the severity and effect of the action. The most serious offences are protected against by laws, less serious ones discouraged by social disapproval, etc.

So social institutions like laws, social disapproval, personal vigilantism, etc, they all have their place, but as practical defenses against actions that can disrupt our society. Personal devellopment should always be preferred and interference and coercion has the burden of proof if it is to be justified.
Methods of more severity should be treated as 'last resort' methods when less invasive attempts fail.

What I'm trying to say is...
Like all my ideas this is all work in progress, so my presentation of wording of what I'm saying probably needs a lot of work. Nonetheless, here I go and try and explain the main points I want to get across:

1) Absolute Morality misses the point
Absolute morality tries to treat morality as a whole as laws that everyone should just categorically follow. Just obey.
This misses the point in morality, misses the point in law, and more or less everything else too. They've recognised that some order is needed (the reason why we have some law) and then over the top to try and devellop/impose some absolute law for everything.
What it boils down is a complete lack of faith in human nature, thinking that we need strict laws to control our every action rather than just let go and let our natural personalities shine.

2) The argument between liberals and authoritarians isn't over moral rules
Both tend to agree what the moral rules are to a degree.
The difference is their way of applying the moral rules.
The authoritarians believe in the absolute morality, have no faith in letting people think for themselves and demand obedience on certain issues. The liberals have a better understanding of what morality and laws is, when and why it should be obeyed, and consequently recognise the flaws in the over-simplication of anarchism.
The authoritarians will accuse the liberals of 'picking and choosing', but what they're really doing is recognising that morality is too complex to fit into the over-simplistic rules the authoritarians want.

3) Both have the same theoretical attitude to freethinking
That is, they both recognise that freethinking is morally encouragable.
The authoritarian will believe that freethinking is technically a good thing and will stress the point that they are not against it. The thing is, the nature of freethinking will mean that despite the authoritarian's theoretical approval of it, it contradicts the authoritarian's approach to morality so they will usually end up opposing it in practice. They are most likely to accept it in practice when you point out that their own authoritarian rules demand that they do, and even then it will be accepted grudgingly, and they will likely try and find loop-holes so they can find a 'legal' way to get around their own moral principles!!!

4) This isn't to demonise authoritarians themselves
I don't think that the world simply splits between authoritarians and liberals. People who are mostly liberal can be authoritarian on certain issues and people who are mostly authoritarian can be liberal on other subjects. The purpose is to discredit authoritarian thinking so when we get into an authoritarian mindset (which is perhaps more stressful for the authoritarian themself than the people around them!!) then we can remind ourself that we are getting ahead of ourselves and see if we can try and relax a bit. When battling an authoritarians it's dead easy to find yourself fighting back by develloping your own authoritarian ideals to combat theirs, becoming one yourself without even realising it. So I think it's good not to associate authoritarian with a position because it can make you less likely to recognise the real thing - i.e. when you are doing it yourself.




This has probably been a pointless topic as it mostly states the obvious, stuff we likely recognise just by being ourselves in real life. But it's nice to be able to back it up with justification, especially as we will sometimes come up against authoritarians in debate.
Sooooo... thoughts?

 

strafio i have too say thats a good point but too really understand morality you have to look at all theories and all ways of looking at it.

people like Emmanuel Kant said that we have duties that we should obey as human beings not as guidelines and rules. kant said that the ultimate form of good is good will and so all people should strive for this good will.

now as to your general question, moralty. kant goes on to say morals are not there as rules but as actions. you shouldn't worry about the consequences because your never going to know them. you should look into the action it self giving some money to a poor person for example is good action it self not because that person can go on and buy some food.

its the same with duties, you have a duty to uphold the most moralistic life you can (not to say you don't have a choice) if someone put a gun to your head and said rape the women next to you or i'll blow you head off then you would have to have your head blown off because you always have a choice to say yeah ok then and so you life would saved but kant doesn't look at those consequences and so you should only do the right thing at the time not the way in which the action has rewards. in other words we all have duties to uphold, as its our duty to uphold our duties. what i'm trying to get at is cases like murder and rape will always seems wrong to me in all cases.

even if it is an absolutist approach.

 

I'm slightly familiar with Kant and his Categorical Imperatives but I've been meaning to get better acquainted.

Kant, like all philosophers, had some great ideas and some dumb ones.
What's important isn't so much that he said it but that there is justification for what he said.
For instance, he said that lying was bad as it caused a breakdown in communication.

It's fair enough that we cannot work out the consequences in mind.
Sometimes, for the sake of practicality, we need to follow a rule set without being able to justify it.
That said, there's two problems.
There's the psychological problems just being obedient to rules that I described in the main post.
There's also a problem if your rule set isn't perfect.
You'll be obeying bad rules and doing bad things.
Clearly we need to work to make sure that we work with the best rule set that we can and that we are open to over-riding bad rules.

There are some actions that are clear cut examples of wrong.
Murder and rape are good examples.
It's particular cases like these where simple rules that you follow with absolute obedience can work.
They are so specifically defined concepts that rule out most complications and exceptions and practical situations we would come across in the real world.
E.g. self defence isn't murder
We can only find exceptions by coming up with crazy scenarios that wouldn't happen in real life.

Those are only the extreme actions though.
The less extreme actions are, the easier it is to find an exception.
If I had been hiding a Jew in my house and the Gestapo had come knocking on my door, I am certain the the morally right thing to do would be to categorically lie to them and deny that I was hiding anyone in my house.
That's still quite an extreme example but it's clear that the "Never lie" rule is too work in the real world - too many places where it just isn't the right thing to follow.
To me, being as honest as I can be is a very different thing to the rule "Do not tell a lie"
Especially as you can dishonestly deceive someone without technically telling a lie...

 

Strafio reading this overall I agree but at the same time I think your characterising 'authoritians' a bit. The law for instance may be based on reward/punishment but I can't see how it could operate any other way. I would also say there is a fair amount of playing with the law going on all the time in any given society. One only need to study the history of law in the US over the past 100 years for example to see that even within what I guess could be construed as an authoritarian system things DO change and creativeness clearly does play a significant part in this.

Regardless though you already highlighted all those issues in your 2nd post. I would concur mostly it's stating the obvious but it is good sometimes to work out where you stand on things. Yeah so overall I do strongly agree.

 

Could I turn the question of authoritarianism onto the question of education and qualifications - and as a bonus it relates to martial arts?

Originally somebody learning a skill would just have to work out form themselves the best way to do it. Some trial and error over time and gradually the skill improved. Then someone else would want to learn and so the original person may teach them their way which would save the time and effort of all that trial and error for the student. All good so far but now we have gone qualification obsessed. If you want to do something you are often forbidden unless you hold a piece of paper signed by someone else saying you are 'qualified' to do it.

It's an authoritarian concept. Only if I say you are qualified to do this will you be allowed to do it. If you do this thing my way, in the way that I myself studied and don't deviate from that then I will allow you to carry on this skill/tradition whatever.

Obviously this works well most of the time (ish) and nobody wants unqualified people operating on their children for example but then again how many geniuses and multi-millionaire entrepreneurs have been kicked out of school with no qualifications?

This is an interesting one from an MA point of view as some styles are very rigid in their qualifications and grading structures with others very much less so. thus we retain a very eclectic mixture of hundreds of different martial arts and the public can pick and choose and the best teachers and schools survive in a darwinian process. If all teachers were highly regulated then how many lesser known but valid martial arts and their knowledge would we lose. Eventually it might all become one mish mash of techniques with little discernible styles that would suit some people but by no means all.

Or am I just rambling?

 

Thoughts from a legal perspective

IMO liberalism really isn't incompatible with authoritarianism at all. Most liberal democratic countries have codified constitutions, the provisions of which can be invoked by unelected judges to strike down legislation passed by democratically elected bodies. The main argument in favour of this is that certain liberal ideas are so crucial to society that they must never be contravened, even if popular opinion is in favour of it. Many early liberals firmly disliked the idea of democratic government because they felt it would lead to the unjustified violation of rich people's property rights.

However, I think there is a limit to how absolute any law can be, because it will have to be applied to fact situations which often vary. The law is tested all the time as judges try to apply its principles to new fact situations that arise. There are also occassions where two or more supposedly sacrasanct moral or legal principles collide.

If I've understood you correctly you're basically saying that governments should be minimalist, which is something I certainly agree with.

 

I'll go along with the part about it being pointless.

 

So you decided to post in this thread because...?

 

Because the point of an internet forum is to interact, share perspectives and maybe learn something in the process.

You offered your opinion, I'm only doing the same, and IMO this kind of collegiate philosophy student, overintellectual dissection of human behavior and what motivates it is ultimately meaningless.

Further, the thread starter specifically solicited responses by asking for the thoughts of those who read his post, so I granted his request.

Making an effort to be clear and succinct, I merely agreed with one of his closing statements.

 

lol! Fair enough then.
That said, I don't really think it's pointless.
While the average person doesn't need this break down, the fact is that morality is an issue where there are strong disagreements and tackling those disagreements require digging into the details.

Out of interest, what do you think motivates my "over intellectual dissection"?

 

As you say, morality is an issue where there are strong disagreements, but if by "tackling those disagreements" you're expressing an aspiration or intent to convince or convert people to your side of those arguments I would offer the opinion that you're wasting your time.

If you're digging into the details in order to support your arguments in such disagreements.... I would offer the same opinion.

I can only guess about the motivation for your "over intellectual dissection."
With nothing to go on except having read a few of your posts, I'd attribute it to a combination of your nature and your education, and the belief that the intellect can actually grasp (to a large extent) the nature of the reality it is but a small subset of.

Might as well try to fit the ocean in a bucket.

 

So basically you think all debates on morality are pointless?

 

That's a generalization, and it's not what I said, but I understand how it was inferred from my comments.

Morality and its constructs are hugely subjective, and each individual's moral beliefs are in large part formed far beneath the level of the intellect by cultural, historic, family and mythological influences. (To draw on an Oriental model, they are karmic in nature.)

Being that deeply imbedded in the consciousness, they are largely immune to change via force of reason. Thus no matter how perfectly formed the logical and intellectual components of an argument are, they have no power to sway moral beliefs.

 

I would never expect an "instant conversion" due to argument but you seem to be going as far as to under estimate the effect reason can have.
Even though people tend to be very emotional and intuitive when it comes to morality, reasoned arguments can do their bit to shape their opinions in the long run.
Our intuition comes from the subconscious processes where it continuously analyses vast amounts of data/information, too much for our conscious processes to handle, and gives out a "conclusion" that seems to fit our beliefs over all.
If a person takes on and contemplates my arguments, and accepts that they are rational, this will do enough to atleast put it into the process and future intuitive judgements will start to take it into account.

 

Perhaps I do underestimate the effects of reason, but perhaps you overestimate them.

 

If that was true then there would be no changes in culture or politics other than those brought at the point of a sword.

 

I don't think he was ruling out persuasion altogether.
Just a strict scientific methodology for settling disputes.