Selflessness Scenario

[aleph_0]

I am taking an ethics course, in which the professor is writing a book. He has sent us students the manuscript and the point of the class is to examine his new approach to ethics, discuss it in class, write papers on it, and he will use this information in the process of writing the final product.

It's a neat idea, and a somewhat interesting topic as well as format. All the same, I find his ethics rather confused. He relies heavily, it seems, on intuitions of morality. And his intuitions paint a relatively selfless picture, which I will probably soon argue is just a cultural bias.

All the same, there is an example of moral action that I find interesting. Magda Trocme began the rescue of Jewish refugee children at Le Chambon. As I understand it, it began when a child knocked on the door of the presbytery asking for refuge and Trocme unquestioningly [unthinkingly?] answered "Naturally, come in, and come in."

There are two questions, the answer to both of which I think I know. However, I'd be curious about any well-considered responses from the members here.

Was her action moral?

Was it more or less moral, or neither, in virtue of having been a choice made without deliberation?

[brian0918]

Was it more or less moral, or neither, in virtue of having been a choice made without deliberation?

If you're talking about her accepting that one child unquestioningly/unthinkingly, why do you believe she should have deliberated on it?

I'd consider it immoral to turn someone away simply because accepting them might put you at increased risk of harm from an immoral regime. To do so would be to buy into their system, to play by their rules, to accept their moral code. Accepting a guest into your home seems amoral, and fostering a child who has the potential for a successful future seems moral. Supporting individual rights by standing as an example for freedom in the face of an extreme oppressor promotes long-term stability for you and your loved ones.

As for the professor's book, I suggest reading this article from the Objective Standard. It's the first article I've read from that journal, and it examines intuition as the source of morality among certain atheists. For example:

...the history of philosophy is replete with appeals to a “moral sense” or “moral intuition” or “moral law within.” But although many have appealed to such a sense, none has ever been able to overcome the fact that it is observationally false that humans possess an innate sense of right and wrong: Many people, and not just psychopaths, make horrifically bad choices that ruin their own lives, the lives of others, or both. And not all of these people know that their actions are morally wrong. On the contrary, many believe that their actions are morally justified. Among the countless counterexamples one could cite against any claim to an “innate conscience” is the fact that the 9/11 hijackers regarded their murderous actions not as abhorrent, but as sublime. Did these killers—and the millions of people in the Middle East who celebrated their actions—lack an innate conscience? Or did their innate consciences house different contents than those of Americans who reacted with horror to what they did?

If indeed his ethics is founded on "intuition", I'd ask him on whose intuition?, and remind him what is intended purposes are for the book: to persuade readers to his opinion. I'd then ask how he intends to persuade people solely through reference to his innate, inexplicable moral guidelines.

Edited September 12, 2008 by brian0918

[aleph_0]

Well, first, I'm not so sure this is a terribly moral issue. In a sense, all subjects which ask about choices a person makes in his life are questions of morality. But that would include whether to buy cantaloupe or honeydew. So some questions of choice are more core moral questions, and some are less core. I consider questions like these, questions of legitimate other-directed action, to be secondary questions of morality. Core morality gets at the individual in question, what kind of life should he lead? When medicine asks about its goals, they think of a healthy human being, with a body that can serve its own goals. When ethics asks about its goals, it should think of a man who has successfully served his own life. So that's #1. I don't think this question is terribly to the point. Would I give the child refuge? Sure. But I don't take that to be a measure of my morality.

Secondly, I think it would be wrong to act without deliberation in a certain sense. How does she know her actions are right? Could she not act without thinking in other situations, like being a German serviceman who kills Jews without thinking of the moral implications, and later say, "I was just following orders."? Fine you were following orders, but you should have questioned those orders. But if you fail to examine your own choices, you'll never know which are the right ones. If you shut down your deliberation, your actions may or may not be right. The act of choosing not to deliberate may, itself, be immoral because you leave yourself in this ambiguity.

Third, what makes this action moral? In what way was her action self-serving? This is more complicated and I'll write on it later.

[brian0918]

In a sense, all subjects which ask about choices a person makes in his life are questions of morality.

As I understand it, choosing whether to live or die is amoral.

Secondly, I think it would be wrong to act without deliberation in a certain sense.

I'm just picturing the situation. You hear a knock at your door. You open the door and see a child. You determine the child to be of no threat to you. The child asks to come in. Whether or not you say yes seems amoral to me. It would be immoral to say no simply because the child is being hunted by an oppressive regime. It would likewise be immoral to accept that child into your home and provide for him for the rest of his existence with no expectation of benefit. It would be moral to accept that child if you openly do so and promote it to the public as a counterpoint to the oppressive regime.

Edited September 12, 2008 by brian0918

[Zip]

I would hazard a guess that the decision was made "without thought" because the thought had already been given to it. This person was not operating in a vacuum she knew the nature of the Nazi state, her thought/morals took over from there.

What could be more moral than saving a person from captivity, slavery and death? If nations have the moral right to invade tyrannies then certainly individuals have the moral right or obligation (depending on self-interest) to save people from them.

[D'kian]

I am taking an ethics course, in which the professor is writing a book. He has sent us students the manuscript and the point of the class is to examine his new approach to ethics, discuss it in class, write papers on it, and he will use this information in the process of writing the final product.

I'd present the teacher an invoice for services rendered, or ask for a cut of the royalties (the former, most likely).

Was her action moral?

Not knowing the circumstances, it's difficult to say precisely. In general, however, children are innocent beings who by their nature depend heavily on adults. A child often cannot fend for himself. Therefore the proper response from an adult is compassion. One moral action is to care for the child if one is able and willing to do so, but there are others.

Was it more or less moral, or neither, in virtue of having been a choice made without deliberation?

edliberation in itself is neither moral not immoral. What matters is how a decision is reached, not the time required to reach it. Some people tend to think about what they'd do in situations they are likely to face. Such people don't need to think about a response when they face it because they've done their thinking already.

Edited orphan quotes

Edited September 12, 2008 by D'kian

[themadkat]

I would hazard a guess that the decision was made "without thought" because the thought had already been given to it. This person was not operating in a vacuum she knew the nature of the Nazi state, her thought/morals took over from there.

What could be more moral than saving a person from captivity, slavery and death? If nations have the moral right to invade tyrannies then certainly individuals have the moral right or obligation (depending on self-interest) to save people from them.

I agree...to me this seems pretty clear-cut. Why wouldn't you value innocent life and do anything you can to undermine an anti-life power structure?

[aleph_0]

As I understand it, choosing whether to live or die is amoral.

I would disagree. I might concede that I cannot understand the choice that a person considering euthanasia is faced with. But I doubt that it lacks all moral consideration.

I'm just picturing the situation. You hear a knock at your door. You open the door and see a child. You determine the child to be of no threat to you. The child asks to come in. Whether or not you say yes seems amoral to me. It would be immoral to say no simply because the child is being hunted by an oppressive regime. It would likewise be immoral to accept that child into your home and provide for him for the rest of his existence with no expectation of benefit. It would be moral to accept that child if you openly do so and promote it to the public as a counterpoint to the oppressive regime.

If you mean that someone might say, "I choose not to take the child in because I do not want to risk my life," I wouldn't categorically reject this. If one is sure that he will die as a result of taking the child in, he may rightfully refuse. As the history illustrates, though, Trocme was not in such unavoidable doom. However, doing it openly would have invited death, and that would have been wrong. Yes, it is wrong to do anything with no expectation of benefit. Is there benefit in taking the child in? That's probably the most important question of the matter.

I would hazard a guess that the decision was made "without thought" because the thought had already been given to it. This person was not operating in a vacuum she knew the nature of the Nazi state, her thought/morals took over from there.

I agree. This is my argument, which I plan to press in class.

What could be more moral than saving a person from captivity, slavery and death? If nations have the moral right to invade tyrannies then certainly individuals have the moral right or obligation (depending on self-interest) to save people from them.

What could be more moral? Inventing a new source of energy. Accomplishing a great, personally satisfying goal. Service of others is far from the most moral action I can think of. I surprised you would talk of moral obligation. Obviously, the issue of right doesn't arise. Of course you have the right to protect the child.

I'd present the teacher an invoice for services rendered, or ask for a cut of the royalties (the former, most likely).

It's worth-while just to work with such a prominent philosopher, and to tell him how he's wrong.

Not knowing the circumstances, it's difficult to say precisely. In general, however, children are innocent beings who by their nature depend heavily on adults. A child often cannot fend for himself. Therefore the proper response from an adult is compassion. One moral action is to care for the child if one is able and willing to do so, but there are others.

Agreed. Because it is a child in a place with no justice, it is moral to pursue justice in any way possible--giving refuge is one of them. It is moral to try to build the kind of society in which you want to live.

edliberation in itself is neither moral not immoral. What matters is how a decision is reached, not the time required to reach it.

I don't think anyone is claiming that you have to spend at least 37 hours on a given moral issue in order to be justified in claiming a conclusion. The point is that you must examine what actions are the right actions, rather than acting mindlessly and without independent judgment--as contrasted with, say, basic intuitions which are most commonly provided by the culture in which you were raised.

[brian0918]

It's worth-while just to work with such a prominent philosopher, and to tell him how he's wrong.

What is Kitcher best known for?

(Answering my own question: Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism; Living with Darwin: Evolution, Design, and the Future of Faith; The Lives to Come; Science, Truth, and Democracy)

Because it is a child in a place with no justice, it is moral to pursue justice in any way possible--giving refuge is one of them. It is moral to try to build the kind of society in which you want to live.

I think that this statement, combined with Zip's comment about "the thought had already been given to it" should be enough to justify the event as it is written, or at least provide a context in which such actions would be justifiable (since Trocme's personal motives might never be known). She had already thought about it, and she was fighting for her freedom by promoting the whole idea of freedom in the face of oppression. If that's the case, then her quickness is explainable, and her action is justifiable.

This is my argument, which I plan to press in class.

What exactly does the professor have to say about this incident?

Edited September 12, 2008 by brian0918

[Zip]

What could be more moral? Inventing a new source of energy. Accomplishing a great, personally satisfying goal. Service of others is far from the most moral action I can think of. I surprised you would talk of moral obligation. Obviously, the issue of right doesn't arise. Of course you have the right to protect the child.

I disagree that either of the activities you proposed is moral in and of itself.

However the child is a human being and we as conscious, rational and moral beings recognize the child's fundamental worth as one of us and recognizing this fact we act morally toward such a being (within our self-interest).

It is important to note that we do it within the bonds of our own self-interest and value judgments. This scenario would have had a much different outcome if the SS were walking up the front drive as the child asked to be saved...

[aleph_0]

What exactly does the professor have to say about this incident?

He takes it as evidence that sometimes it's wrong to deliberate about moral issues. His claim is that we are given some moral maxims by society, and we can either question them and discover our own independent moral maxims, or we can accept them as a hodge-podge (his own word)--and that, in different contexts, both are acceptable. In the case of Trocme, he claims, she did not deliberate at all but instead accepted the maxim of selflessness and protecting someone in need. So she acted immediately, unquestioningly, and it seems to me, unthinkingly. He juxtaposes this with the (presumably) only alternative, which is to have the child wait at the door while you sit in your philosopher's chair and deliberate over whether it would be moral to give refuge.

So, having formalized my objection (with the help of people here--thank you, by the way), I will argue something to the effect: Yes, it would be wrong to have the child wait while you deliberate. But this is taken to be evidence that you should do some things by unquestioning adherence to cultural maxims, because you [professor] see this as the only alternative to deliberation. It is not the only alternative. Instead, it is good evidence that you should not wait until moments of crisis before investigating what are the right choices to make. That is to say, this is a good allegory to show that you should be intensely deliberative over ethics when you have the luxury! In Randian terminology, the primary moral fault is the choice not to focus, not to identify one's own nature, goals, and one's own good. Just as the refusal to focus on facts now will cause you to, perhaps, err in the future when you build a bridge that collapses; the refusal to focus on the facts of your own good will cause you to, perhaps, act against your life.

Now the professor also makes another point: Fine, you can question ethics, but you can't do it all day or all at once. You have all these maxims given by your society, and you may suspect them and want to lay out your own ethical scheme. But what do you do in the mean time? Just sit in a dark room and think while you waste away to starvation? What if you're faced with a moral question before you have figured out what your moral code should be? Good question. I think... It deserves thought.

I disagree that either of the activities you proposed is moral in and of itself.

How can you, if you consider morality essentially selfish? I take morality to be a code that informs an individual on how to live the most healthy, productive life for himself. It is a code for self-betterment, and what could be more clearly self-bettering than productive action?

[Zip]

Fine, you can question ethics, but you can't do it all day or all at once.

Really? Isn't every decision we make guided by our ethics even long before we understand what the word means? In some respects we are born into the ethics of our parents and these influence us in our ethical decisions until such a time as we think (usually in very small incremental pieces) and develop our own ethical and moral standard.

I'd argue that we spend a great deal of time thinking about ethical and moral choices. Does the Prof believe you have to be engrossed in Aristotelian contemplation to develop personal ethics?

What you do in the mean time is live because a perfect ethics that does not support ones life is a contradiction and we all know what that means.

How can you, if you consider morality essentially selfish? I take morality to be a code that informs an individual on how to live the most healthy, productive life for himself. It is a code for self-betterment, and what could be more clearly self-bettering than productive action?

Ok, I see where you are going... Productive work in general is moral even though individual examples of it may not be.

Edited September 12, 2008 by Zip

[D'kian]

So, having formalized my objection (with the help of people here--thank you, by the way), I will argue something to the effect: Yes, it would be wrong to have the child wait while you deliberate. But this is taken to be evidence that you should do some things by unquestioning adherence to cultural maxims, because you [professor] see this as the only alternative to deliberation. It is not the only alternative. Instead, it is good evidence that you should not wait until moments of crisis before investigating what are the right choices to make.

I agree entirely. However you may be missing something: the situation presented is an emergency. Very few people would hesitate, much less deliberate, when faced with a child in any kind of danger. Even if all they do is yell "watch it, kid!" About the only exception I can think of would be people petrified by sudden panic. In any case, emergencies are not the kinds of situations one should use in order to make rules.

[aleph_0]

Really? Isn't every decision we make guided by our ethics even long before we understand what the word means? In some respects we are born into the ethics of our parents and these influence us in our ethical decisions until such a time as we think (usually in very small incremental pieces) and develop our own ethical and moral standard.

It sounds like you're with him, which is not entirely wrong. It's fine, I suppose, if we take the moral maxims of our parents until we can begin to question them. But we should begin to question and independently understand moral truth as soon as possible. To neglect the project would itself be immoral. The professor, on the other hand, takes it that Trocme was morally fine even though she was presumably in her 20's or 30's, or even 70's (I don't know) and never challenged the moral code she was given. As he paints the picture, she was an adult who acted on instinct--and anything to the contrary would have been moral. "A thought too many" as he puts it.

I'd argue that we spend a great deal of time thinking about ethical and moral choices.

The question is, how much thought should we devote to it? We all agree that no thought is too little and constant thought (pure thought, without action) is too much.

Does the Prof believe you have to be engrossed in Aristotelian contemplation to develop personal ethics?

It depends on what you mean by both "Aristotelian contemplation" and "personal" ethics. His picture is that ethics is a product of social evolution, that we have a hodge-podge of ethics handed down to us that more-or-less works, and that we may either accept it blindly or challenge it. Accepting blindly is sometimes called for, and challenge is sometimes called for.

Ok, I see where you are going... Productive work in general is moral even though individual examples of it may not be.

I can't make sense of that. I can understand nothing more moral than the businessman who organizes people and workers to such perfection that he creates boundless profits, or the scientist who demonstrates a new fundamental principle of physics. Morality is not some collection of ad hoc events, like saving orphans here, and then running somewhere else and battling a tyrannical government. Each might be somewhat virtuous, but they do not cut to the core of what morality is. Morality is not a fight against evil, though that's usually a dramatic way of painting it. Morality is most essentially a code of action that informs the individual how to be self-fulfilling and self-promoting, and the individual instances of it are individual instances of morality.

D'kian, I don't think he (or anyone else whom I can think of) is trying to make a rule out of a crisis situation. It's usually just the case that people test rules by seeing how they apply to emergency situations.

Edited September 12, 2008 by aleph_0

[brian0918]

a hodge-podge of ethics handed down to us that more-or-less works

What is meant by "more-or-less works"? They have a favorable result? Is this pragmatism? Do the ends justify the means?

Asking how much time you should think about something presupposes that you'll never come to a conclusion - which many will claim is true of philosophy (Kevin's professor comes to mind).

[aleph_0]

"More-or-less works" means, I take it, that it creates a social organization that is harmonious but not vulnerable to corruption. So, for instance, a society with no such grab-bag of morals might have people constantly fighting each other. A society with too many moral restrictions will be to pliant when someone in the system decides to be "immoral" and steal, murder, abuse, and so forth. So different societies have evolved different codes of ethics, and these societies both compete and exchange. If one society has a weak set of ethics (either because it has too many or too few morals) then it will fail and be displaced by another society.

He claims that his ethical theory is non-arbitrary, though. He thinks that there is an appropriate, normative morality based on objective conditions, but those objective conditions are the conditions of the society. He's trying to avoid the relativity that says, "Do whatever you want," or "Do whatever your society tells you is right."

[Zip]

I can't make sense of that. I can understand nothing more moral than the businessman who organizes people and workers to such perfection that he creates boundless profits, or the scientist who demonstrates a new fundamental principle of physics.

And indeed each one of those productive works is moral, but a psychopath laying an intricate trap for his next hapless victim is not. Hitler striving to taker over the world with every fibre of his being was not moral. There are a lot of productive efforts that are nowhere near moral.

[Marc K.]

Was her action moral?

Was it more or less moral, or neither, in virtue of having been a choice made without deliberation?

Wait a minute, this must be some sort of test because you don't actually believe that we possess the ability to choose, right?

Are you playing a joke on the rest of us?

[aleph_0]

I don't deny that free will exists. If it doesn't, you can see this topic to understand how the investigation of ethics is still worth-while: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...mp;#entry186589

[Stethoscope]

It was neither good nor bad. The point is she chose to help those children out and that was her moral. No, one forced her to help them, she did it because she wanted to.

[brian0918]

He claims that his ethical theory is non-arbitrary, though. He thinks that there is an appropriate, normative morality based on objective conditions, but those objective conditions are the conditions of the society. He's trying to avoid the relativity that says, "Do whatever you want," or "Do whatever your society tells you is right."

That New Atheism article I referenced also covers this "morality is what society says it is" argument, by showing how the definition of what is "socially acceptable" has changed substantially over the centuries and millennia.

Edited September 12, 2008 by brian0918

[brian0918]

No, one forced her to help them, she did it because she wanted to.

That alone does not make it right.

[aleph_0]

Actually, his argument goes through great pains to investigate the different moral codes of humans throughout their history. Part of his argument is that morality evolves.

[TheEgoist]

Actually, his argument goes through great pains to investigate the different moral codes of humans throughout their history. Part of his argument is that morality evolves.

Evolves? Some of the worst moral crimes have been perpetrated in the past 70 years. This does not seem like an evolution to me.

[Stethoscope]

That alone does not make it right.

The fact is she made a choice, and whether it will help the child out or ultimatley cast her into prison or worst, is unknown. It's like saying you don't tip a waitress at a restraunt. It's certaintly a nice thing to do for the waitress, but there is no moral to it, no obligation.