5 ms·

Most moralities are not mutually compatible. For instance, if my morality is individualism, and your morality is collectivism, we can't coexist without one sid

by javert 6y ago

Most moralities are not mutually compatible. For instance, if my morality is individualism, and your morality is collectivism, we can't coexist without one side being forced by the other to compromise their morality. BTW, I upvoted your comment.

082349872349872 6y ago
What if[1] both sides compromise their morality? True, it's cutting off hydra heads to replace one big problem (should we all be individualist or all be collectivist?) with many many small ones (is this particular problem better addressed with individualistic solutions or collectivistic solutions?) but I'd say expecting that one big problem to be solved would be inhuman. [1] this hypothetical is not very. As far as I can see, none of Eastasia, Eurasia, nor even Oceania, hold to a pure individualism or pure collectivism. (Even north korea, while still apparently very collectivist, looks more individualist in fashion and cuisine than in prior years.)
- javert 6y ago
  If either side is forced to compromise, they simply feel that the system is immoral, and they seek to change it. You can see this, for instance, in American politics. There is no agreement to compromise in general. When compromises happen, they are temporary tactical maneuvers. Afterwards, both sides will continue to fight for what they believe to be moral. (This example is a bit outdated, but just imagine American politics in 1980. I'm not sure both sides today believe in moral principles.) The idea of a meta system where you judge each case individually is not a compromise between individualism and collectivism, it's a new morality that is neither one. Basically, it's pragmatism. Pragmatism tends not to work in the long run, because there isn't any good way to judge each individual case without reference to more general principles. The need for more general principles is why you have moral systems (other than pragmatism) in the first place.
  - 082349872349872 6y ago
    Excellent point about pragmatism. (although I suspect the long run in which it fails to work[1] is the same long run in which we are all dead.) American politics I find makes a poor example, because the first-past-the-post system conflates majorities with mandates, discouraging compromise, so it results in a perpetual political Cupid Shuffle. On the other hand, the executive committee of my government has representatives of far-right (nativist populist) and far-left (socialist) parties, as well as the various centrist parties[2], and we expect them to make compromises which all sides can accept. (Indeed, part of the job of the excomm members is to defend government decisions to their own parties.) "One person one vote" is a practice that allows people to seek to change the system in a way that is more conducive to coexistence than "One less person one less vote". My guess is that the portion of a population who judge cases by referring to pure moral principles tend to get outvoted by the portion of a population whose decision making is more syncretic. In any case, I don't see populations as being bimodally split between pure individualists and pure collectivists, so I would expect that adherents of both, in large enough societies, would find the system immoral: the individualist because the system uses units of coordination which are too large, and the collectivist because the system uses units of coordination which are too small. [1] pragmatism can judge cases by the measure of "how is that working out for you?" Would it be controversial to say that a pragmatic society, faced with either taking an individualistic approach to infectious disease control and a collectivistic approach to ethanol production, or the opposite choices, would not be able to decide if the outcomes of their decisions were favourable or unfavourable? [2] and that's just the political balance. Recently it's been pretty well gender and language balanced as well.
ianleeclark 6y ago
> For instance, if my morality is individualism, and your morality is collectivism, we can't coexist without one side being forced by the other to compromise their morality. Individualism and Collectivism aren't moral frameworks. You could have both an individualist and a collectivist both be deontologists, utilitarians, or some other framework.
- javert 6y ago
  I would be willing to argue in favor of my definitions over yours, but I don't think it's germane to the point I was making. I could re-formulate my example using your terminology quite easily.
- Emma_Goldman 6y ago
  > 'Individualism and Collectivism aren't moral frameworks'. Of course they are. Nozick begins Anarchy, State and Utopia with the pronouncement that individual rights are absolute. Rawls begins A Theory of Justice by claiming that justice is the first virtue of social institutions. Their conflicting visions of political life are intimately related to the value the place, respectively, on the value of the individual and the value of the collective. The triumvirate deontology, utilitarianism and virtue ethics is a useful framework, especially pedagogically, as a parsimonious way of teaching ethics. But actual ways in which humans have thought about ethical and political life is far more complex, varied and interesting. If you tried to reduce Hegel, early Javanese culture, or third-wave feminism to 'deontology, utilitarianism and virtue ethics', you would get no where. The vast majority of people have not thought in those terms, and so are misunderstood when read through those terms.

by javert 6y ago

082349872349872 6y ago

What if[1] both sides compromise their morality? True, it's cutting off hydra heads to replace one big problem (should we all be individualist or all be collectivist?) with many many small ones (is this particular problem better addressed with individualistic solutions or collectivistic solutions?) but I'd say expecting that one big problem to be solved would be inhuman. [1] this hypothetical is not very. As far as I can see, none of Eastasia, Eurasia, nor even Oceania, hold to a pure individualism or pure collectivism. (Even north korea, while still apparently very collectivist, looks more individualist in fashion and cuisine than in prior years.)

javert 6y ago
If either side is forced to compromise, they simply feel that the system is immoral, and they seek to change it. You can see this, for instance, in American politics. There is no agreement to compromise in general. When compromises happen, they are temporary tactical maneuvers. Afterwards, both sides will continue to fight for what they believe to be moral. (This example is a bit outdated, but just imagine American politics in 1980. I'm not sure both sides today believe in moral principles.) The idea of a meta system where you judge each case individually is not a compromise between individualism and collectivism, it's a new morality that is neither one. Basically, it's pragmatism. Pragmatism tends not to work in the long run, because there isn't any good way to judge each individual case without reference to more general principles. The need for more general principles is why you have moral systems (other than pragmatism) in the first place.
- 082349872349872 6y ago
  Excellent point about pragmatism. (although I suspect the long run in which it fails to work[1] is the same long run in which we are all dead.) American politics I find makes a poor example, because the first-past-the-post system conflates majorities with mandates, discouraging compromise, so it results in a perpetual political Cupid Shuffle. On the other hand, the executive committee of my government has representatives of far-right (nativist populist) and far-left (socialist) parties, as well as the various centrist parties[2], and we expect them to make compromises which all sides can accept. (Indeed, part of the job of the excomm members is to defend government decisions to their own parties.) "One person one vote" is a practice that allows people to seek to change the system in a way that is more conducive to coexistence than "One less person one less vote". My guess is that the portion of a population who judge cases by referring to pure moral principles tend to get outvoted by the portion of a population whose decision making is more syncretic. In any case, I don't see populations as being bimodally split between pure individualists and pure collectivists, so I would expect that adherents of both, in large enough societies, would find the system immoral: the individualist because the system uses units of coordination which are too large, and the collectivist because the system uses units of coordination which are too small. [1] pragmatism can judge cases by the measure of "how is that working out for you?" Would it be controversial to say that a pragmatic society, faced with either taking an individualistic approach to infectious disease control and a collectivistic approach to ethanol production, or the opposite choices, would not be able to decide if the outcomes of their decisions were favourable or unfavourable? [2] and that's just the political balance. Recently it's been pretty well gender and language balanced as well.

ianleeclark 6y ago

> For instance, if my morality is individualism, and your morality is collectivism, we can't coexist without one side being forced by the other to compromise their morality. Individualism and Collectivism aren't moral frameworks. You could have both an individualist and a collectivist both be deontologists, utilitarians, or some other framework.

javert 6y ago
I would be willing to argue in favor of my definitions over yours, but I don't think it's germane to the point I was making. I could re-formulate my example using your terminology quite easily.
Emma_Goldman 6y ago
> 'Individualism and Collectivism aren't moral frameworks'. Of course they are. Nozick begins Anarchy, State and Utopia with the pronouncement that individual rights are absolute. Rawls begins A Theory of Justice by claiming that justice is the first virtue of social institutions. Their conflicting visions of political life are intimately related to the value the place, respectively, on the value of the individual and the value of the collective. The triumvirate deontology, utilitarianism and virtue ethics is a useful framework, especially pedagogically, as a parsimonious way of teaching ethics. But actual ways in which humans have thought about ethical and political life is far more complex, varied and interesting. If you tried to reduce Hegel, early Javanese culture, or third-wave feminism to 'deontology, utilitarianism and virtue ethics', you would get no where. The vast majority of people have not thought in those terms, and so are misunderstood when read through those terms.