The Egoist believes that "self interest" is an end, as he is a end in himself. But, what if the Egoist is challenged by virtue?. That is, the needs of the community, the world or the "other".
This is when the Egoist must grapple with his own priorities, life values and goals. It is when the Egoist is approached by another with a proposition. The Egoist understands that it is his right to consider the proposition or reject it outright. This is the basis of social contract and business ethics.
The Categorial Imperative and the Golden Rule is an "ideal", but the real world does not work on these values, principles or ideals. And our Founers knew this. This was why they balanced power between the branches of government. And it is also the basis of upright dealing in business. Full access to what is expected and required in a givern job is the basis of "life's" stability. It is the basis of transparency in government. And the basis of a free society. Government is not to intrude into the private lives of the individual and make demands. Individual have the right to challenge such investigations and intrustion into their life by "Big Brother", or moral busybodies!
The whole basis of Obamacare is based on the assumption that people are entitled to certain guaruntees. The government is to guaruntee in a positive way those that are less fortunate. Others disagree. These believe that the individual must have the priority of choosing about his life and this is based on a limited government, not the positive rights of government.
We must not be ignorant of how totaltalitarian governments gain ground and footholds in society. Or we will be paying the price of that ignorance. We must not allow or ignore such behavior that is disrepectful and dishonoring of "The People"!
Showing posts with label categorical imperative. Show all posts
Showing posts with label categorical imperative. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
The I-It in Ethics
Philosophers have had quandaries on what to value and what is of value. Ayn Rand values the individual, and liberty, and capitalism, as a outgrow of that position (at least from what I understand/know now about her philosophy). Her philosophy is called Objectivism. Its morality is based in Ethical Egosim. Self interest is of value in itself, as it is the limiting of collective demands.
Ethical Egoism is in opposition to virtue based ethics, which would value moral obligation or moral duty. And virtue based ethics is based on societal value, as an end, not the indivdiual themself as an end! This means that the individual's life is of no value apart from its utility or function within society. Human rights is based on individual value or personhood. Virtue Ethics is based on moral examples, heroes, etc. It is not based on self-interest, but individual sacrifice. It is a Jesus as "moral model" example mode of life.
But, just as I would not want to be treated as an "It" or the commodity to meet someone else's "need" or a function of society, as evaluated by some "leader (ship)", I do not think we should treat others as "ITs" or means to our ends, as this devalues individual life, as well!
So, though I don't know much about ethics, per se, ethics was what got me to change my major from sociology to religion/philosophy. And I believe firmly that the individual, his life, and his values are ultimate ends in themself. Just as well, I do not believe that we can live in the world as an "island", without considering "the other" as a person, or society as a value. The other also has interests, life values, and pursuits. So, I would not want to treat the other "I", as a means, or an "It". Isn't that virtue? It is the basis of the Golden Rule, or the Categorical Imperative, isn't it?
Our government is the best form, as it allows for the indivdual Egoist, as well as the Virtue based ethicist. Our society values the individual, which promotes societal flourishing, as that particular individual pursues their "self-interest". And isn't society about the I-Thou relationship? The social contract agreement of equal protections under law?
Ethical Egoism is in opposition to virtue based ethics, which would value moral obligation or moral duty. And virtue based ethics is based on societal value, as an end, not the indivdiual themself as an end! This means that the individual's life is of no value apart from its utility or function within society. Human rights is based on individual value or personhood. Virtue Ethics is based on moral examples, heroes, etc. It is not based on self-interest, but individual sacrifice. It is a Jesus as "moral model" example mode of life.
But, just as I would not want to be treated as an "It" or the commodity to meet someone else's "need" or a function of society, as evaluated by some "leader (ship)", I do not think we should treat others as "ITs" or means to our ends, as this devalues individual life, as well!
So, though I don't know much about ethics, per se, ethics was what got me to change my major from sociology to religion/philosophy. And I believe firmly that the individual, his life, and his values are ultimate ends in themself. Just as well, I do not believe that we can live in the world as an "island", without considering "the other" as a person, or society as a value. The other also has interests, life values, and pursuits. So, I would not want to treat the other "I", as a means, or an "It". Isn't that virtue? It is the basis of the Golden Rule, or the Categorical Imperative, isn't it?
Our government is the best form, as it allows for the indivdual Egoist, as well as the Virtue based ethicist. Our society values the individual, which promotes societal flourishing, as that particular individual pursues their "self-interest". And isn't society about the I-Thou relationship? The social contract agreement of equal protections under law?
Monday, January 12, 2009
New Information on Happiness and How Life and Liberty Intersect
Today, in my e-mail, it was reported in The Happiness Journal that doing volunteer work, alturistic service, etc. made children happier than organized religion, such as prayer, attending church, etc.. Although the e-mail was not detailed, I wondered how they assessed their "subjects". And I wondered if this was the wisdom of the "kingdom of God" that Jesus spoke about...
Is spirituality the utmost goal of a human being? Or is ethical formation in one's duties and responsibilities? One is based on a transcendent Being superintending life and the circumstances of life, while the other view understands man's duty to man, without regard to the supernatural.
The question for me concerning the spiritual aspect is; Is spirituality based on "feeling" rather than organized religion being based on reason? Psychologists deal with personality, as well as behavior. So, my question would be why would a ENFP be understood as "childish" in their spirituality, while a "ISTJ" would be understood as reasonable?
Some years ago I took a personality test and asked the counselor if the results would be skewed because of life events or stressors. She agreed that they could. And it has proven to be true, as my personality type "changed". I have always wondered about their validity anyway.
On the behavior side, was habit formation, such as Kant's duty bound ethics, and the categorical imperative a variable in assessing children? As this would be understood to be discipline for the training of children and in opposition to spirituality? Or is the universal beyond the childish imagination?
And in regards to children and adults, wouldn't an adult have their values clarified enought to decide for themselves what they would be committed to...Does duty come before desire, or is desire something that should be trained and honed? I think duty is religion's law, whereas, desire is art's hope or vision of life purpose.
Again, motivation is also an element to consider when addressing the behavior of subjects. What motivates one person to respond to a need, and another not? What worldviews benefit man's responsible nature, or is there a nature that needs to be trained toward responsiblity? Whether there is an innate responsible nature or not, what hinders or distorts it's development?
All these questions interface the moral, ethical, psychological, spiritual realms that intersect man made in God's image! I don't know the answers, does anyone else?
Is spirituality the utmost goal of a human being? Or is ethical formation in one's duties and responsibilities? One is based on a transcendent Being superintending life and the circumstances of life, while the other view understands man's duty to man, without regard to the supernatural.
The question for me concerning the spiritual aspect is; Is spirituality based on "feeling" rather than organized religion being based on reason? Psychologists deal with personality, as well as behavior. So, my question would be why would a ENFP be understood as "childish" in their spirituality, while a "ISTJ" would be understood as reasonable?
Some years ago I took a personality test and asked the counselor if the results would be skewed because of life events or stressors. She agreed that they could. And it has proven to be true, as my personality type "changed". I have always wondered about their validity anyway.
On the behavior side, was habit formation, such as Kant's duty bound ethics, and the categorical imperative a variable in assessing children? As this would be understood to be discipline for the training of children and in opposition to spirituality? Or is the universal beyond the childish imagination?
And in regards to children and adults, wouldn't an adult have their values clarified enought to decide for themselves what they would be committed to...Does duty come before desire, or is desire something that should be trained and honed? I think duty is religion's law, whereas, desire is art's hope or vision of life purpose.
Again, motivation is also an element to consider when addressing the behavior of subjects. What motivates one person to respond to a need, and another not? What worldviews benefit man's responsible nature, or is there a nature that needs to be trained toward responsiblity? Whether there is an innate responsible nature or not, what hinders or distorts it's development?
All these questions interface the moral, ethical, psychological, spiritual realms that intersect man made in God's image! I don't know the answers, does anyone else?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
