Resolving conflicting loyalties...

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Ned
Posts: 675
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2013 10:56 pm
Location: Canada

Resolving conflicting loyalties...

Post by Ned »

The suggestions I am making in this chapter should be read as guidelines that I have found useful in my own life. No one can follow them with absolute perfection, because human beings have conflicting motivations: what Edward O. Wilson called individual-level selection and group-level selection in our evolutionary process (The Meaning of Human Existence). The result of individual-level evolutionary selection predisposes us to favour our own and our progeny’s survival over the interests of our group. The result of the group-level evolutionary selection motivates us to serve the interests of the various groups we are part of. As he so eloquently states:

“We are unlikely to yield completely to either force as the ideal solution to our social and political turmoil. To give in completely to the instinctual urgings born from individual selection would be to dissolve society. At the opposite extreme, to surrender to the urgings from group selection would turn us into angelic robots - the outsized equivalents of ants.”

With these caveats, I will attempt to define human morality in a logical and systematic way that should serve as compass for future scientists when they struggle with the conflicting loyalties that they will unavoidably encounter.

-----

The human species is a tribal species, just like wolves and gorillas. We depend on one another for survival. The question of loyalty to our tribe often conflicts with our other loyalties: to family, humanity, religion, etc.

The relationship of our social concepts can be seen as follows:

1. We have evolved with nearly identical needs for survival.

2. Our nearly identical needs created nearly identical values.

3. Our nearly identical values created a set of ethical rules (dos and don’ts)

4. Our dependence on one another created a need for loyalty to our ethical rules.

5. Our loyalty to ethical rules created an unwritten social contract apart from the laws of the land as defined by the ruling elite. Those laws are specific to one culture or one nation-state. The unwritten social contract recognizing human interdependence is universal. All cultures through history have known that murder and theft are wrong. Awareness of the rules of the social contract is called our ‘conscience’, or knowing right from wrong. This universal concept of ‘right conduct’ is called morality.

6. The unwritten social contract created standards of socially acceptable behaviour. Any act or attitude that enhances the chances of survival for the group is good. Any act or attitude that harms the chances of survival for the group is bad. Since individual members accept the protection and nourishment of the tribe, the only moral conduct is to seek individual survival/welfare only through the survival/welfare of the tribe. If the two are in conflict, the needs of the tribe come first. We call those who consistently demonstrate their willingness to defend the tribe, even at great personal sacrifice, ‘heroes’. Those who betray the tribe we call ‘traitors’ and treason is usually punishable by death or expulsion.

7. In our complicated world, individuals have simultaneous and often conflicting memberships in many groups: immediate family, extended family, friends, neighbourhood, school, work, religious denomination, political party, social organizations, nation, race, gender, species and life.

8. Resolving conflicts requires prioritizing our loyalties.

9. Since a sub-group accepts the protection and nourishment of the larger group of which it is a part, the only moral conduct is to seek survival/welfare of the sub-group ONLY through the survival/welfare of the containing group. If the two are in conflict, the needs of the containing group come first.

10. In this sense, our ultimate loyalty should be to life. Life on this planet is the ultimate containing group. We are all part of it. It nourishes us all. If we betray it, if we destroy it, we destroy ourselves.
Last edited by Ned on Sun May 24, 2015 5:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ned
Posts: 675
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2013 10:56 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Resolving conflicting loyalties...

Post by Ned »

Let me add some more details:

Morality is about the survival of the whole of which we are part. At Nuremberg, the claims of loyalty to country did not excuse crimes against humanity. There should be 'crimes against life' trials for those destroying eco-systems.

I felt ashamed during the first Gulf war when the TV showed us the pelicans covered in oil. I felt that 'we' had betrayed our common heritage. I felt the need to apologize to the cormorants, to all animals, to Life.

Morality has always been in human consciousness, though not always verbalized, defined, analyzed, explained, but lived by a sufficient number of the tribe to assure survival. Tribes that failed the test of morality died and disappeared.

Morality is the prerequisite of survival. Nature created us. We are an inextricable part of it, and have no choice but to behave by its rules. Morality is our interdependence expressed in thought and deed.

Morality is life-affirming. Immorality embraces death. Maybe not immediately, not personally, but the human species can die by many, many incremental steps. Destroying our habitat bit by bit will do it: the poisons in air, water and food are all material manifestations of immorality, of some human being, somewhere, in some capacity, failing the test of ethical behaviour.

We have to sort out our loyalties in a way that doesn’t destroy us. Each containing group takes precedent. My loyalty to my country has to take second place behind my loyalty to humanity. And my loyalty to my species has to come behind my loyalty to universal, interconnected, miraculous and fragile life we are all part of.

It could take one dumb asteroid to destroy us. It could take one dumb humanity that developed too much power before developing enough sense. Morality could save us from that fate.

Random House defines the word ‘honour” as: “high respect as for worth”, or “honesty or integrity in one’s belief and actions”. ‘Honourable’ is defined as “worthy of honour and high respect”. An honourable man is someone who follows the universally accepted rules of right and wrong and, as a consequence, is admired by human beings everywhere. Gandhi was admired around the world, even though he was treated as a criminal by the British ruling class.

The word ‘honour’ has been hijacked and co-opted by the elite that holds most of the wealth and power, and its primary motivation is to maintain this position. Honour came to mean ‘loyalty’ to whatever group, standing for whatever goal or principle. German officers’ sense of ‘honour’ prevented them from standing up to Hitler. However, we all understood why John Le Carre named one of his best novels “The Honourable Schoolboy”, even though Jerry Westerby betrayed his masters.

‘Honour’ does not mean loyalty. SS guards had loyalty. It does not mean ‘integrity’. Bin Laden had integrity. His belief in his horribly misguided crusade seemed genuine.

Honour is the highest praise among human beings. A judge is called ‘your honour’ because he is supposed to have the wisdom and integrity to represent our best interests. Honour means representing this interest. A secret agent, pretending and lying in order to defeat evil from inside is an honourable man. A law-abiding citizen in an evil regime is a dishonourable human being.

Our social concepts are linked into a cause-and-effect logical chain: survival – needs – values – ethics – social contract – morality - honour.

This chain ties honour to our survival needs, regardless what our rulers pretend our interests are. Citizens know what their interests are, without being told. They want to be healthy, secure, productive; to raise their families in a wholesome, peaceful, co-operative society. Most don’t believe they need to send their sons and daughters to the other side of the globe to kill and be killed.

And, most important to the readers of this book: scientists have a very special moral obligation to humanity. No matter what the justification, do not help immoral leaders acquire the tools they need to force their will on the citizenry. Do not participate in weapons development and do not work for industries that damage the environment. If you do, you will betray the highest loyalty: to life, including yours and your loved ones.
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: Resolving conflicting loyalties...

Post by Advocate »

4. Our dependence on one another created a need for loyalty to our ethical rules.

Ethical intents are, i think, more to the point. Rules are for the ignorant and if what's ethical isn't what the rule says you have a responsibility to do otherwise. Moral principles have never been adequately addressed in law because of a reason you're circling around, priorities.

5. Our loyalty to ethical rules created an unwritten social contract apart from the laws of the land as defined by the ruling elite. Those laws are specific to one culture or one nation-state. The unwritten social contract recognizing human interdependence is universal. All cultures through history have known that murder and theft are wrong. Awareness of the rules of the social contract is called our ‘conscience’, or knowing right from wrong. This universal concept of ‘right conduct’ is called morality.

A social contact is only as good as it is explicit and consentual, which has never been applied meaningfully. Rights must be balanced by duties. Upset that balance and power accrues naturally to whoever gets some first.

6. The unwritten social contract created standards of socially acceptable behaviour. Any act or attitude that enhances the chances of survival for the group is good. Any act or attitude that harms the chances of survival for the group is bad. Since individual members accept the protection and nourishment of the tribe, the only moral conduct is to seek individual survival/welfare only through the survival/welfare of the tribe. If the two are in conflict, the needs of the tribe come first. We call those who consistently demonstrate their willingness to defend the tribe, even at great personal sacrifice, ‘heroes’. Those who betray the tribe we call ‘traitors’ and treason is usually punishable by death or expulsion.

The value western civilization brings to the table is a recognition of the value of the individual. The sacrifices of which you speak are only acceptable when they're necessary, and the group suffers for having to make them. The good of the group is the good of every individual within that group, not the majority.

7. In our complicated world, individuals have simultaneous and often conflicting memberships in many groups: immediate family, extended family, friends, neighbourhood, school, work, religious denomination, political party, social organizations, nation, race, gender, species and life.

That's why none of the typical divisions of ethics is sufficient. Duty is an abdication of morality, not morality as you suggest. Consequentialism fails to account for intent. Virtue fails to account for priorities. Priority Ethics can manage all of the above in their proper place in relation to each other.

8. Resolving conflicts requires prioritizing our loyalties.

Understanding before resolving.

9. Since a sub-group accepts the protection and nourishment of the larger group of which it is a part, the only moral conduct is to seek survival/welfare of the sub-group ONLY through the survival/welfare of the containing group. If the two are in conflict, the needs of the containing group come first.

Your assumption that the group works for everyone sufficiently is quaint and wrong. Nor does everyone owe society a debt, especially given that they had no hand in choosing their birth.

10. In this sense, our ultimate loyalty should be to life. Life on this planet is the ultimate containing group. We are all part of it. It nourishes us all. If we betray it, if we destroy it, we destroy ourselves.

*to the extent it is a prerequisite for other goals.
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: Resolving conflicting loyalties...

Post by Advocate »

>We have to sort out our loyalties in a way that doesn’t destroy us. Each containing group takes precedent. My loyalty to my country has to take second place behind my loyalty to humanity. And my loyalty to my species has to come behind my loyalty to universal, interconnected, miraculous and fragile life we are all part of.

The good of the larger group does not necessarily require any particular action from the individual but more importantly, individuals cannot operate meaningfully at that scale, at least very few can. People are subject to their perspective, materially/temporally as well as psychologically, and must focus their energies where they can be sure of the good they can do, not a larger goal too esoteric to be pragmatic. Actionable certainty is the purpose of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding.

>It could take one dumb asteroid to destroy us. It could take one dumb humanity that developed too much power before developing enough sense. Morality could save us from that fate.

Our technology has exceeded our ethics even more since you wrote that. >:(

>Random House defines the word ‘honour” as: “high respect as for worth”, or “honesty or integrity in one’s belief and actions”. ‘Honourable’ is defined as “worthy of honour and high respect”. An honourable man is someone who follows the universally accepted rules of right and wrong...

Woah there. The more universal a rule is, the less nuanced and less likely to be the right thing to do in a given situation. A person has a responsibility to understand right and wrong, they do NOT have a responsibility to respect the rules. Respect must be earned. It cannot be granted. Rules are for the ignorant and they're a guiding principle at best.

>and, as a consequence, is admired by human beings everywhere. Gandhi was admired around the world, even though he was treated as a criminal by the British ruling class.

That level of universality does not exist, but as an example, the golden rule; the most universal rule of all, is complete bullshit. Of all the versions, most are synonymous with "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." which is only applicable in-so-far as people want the same things, but Real law governs those universal things, theoretically with nuance, and every other conflict is because people want Different things.

>The word ‘honour’ has been hijacked and co-opted by the elite...

I'd say that of the word Elite first.

>Honour is the highest praise among human beings. A judge is called ‘your honour’ because he is supposed to have the wisdom and integrity to represent our best interests. Honour means representing this interest. A secret agent, pretending and lying in order to defeat evil from inside is an honourable man. A law-abiding citizen in an evil regime is a dishonourable human being.

Wisdom and integrity are not honor. Wisdom is either of knowledge (truth wisdom) or pragmatic (practical wisdom). Integrity is personal and self-focused. Honor is social and outward-focused. I don't mean that these are the only definitions but that they do much better work than the ones you've chosen.

>Our social concepts are linked into a cause-and-effect logical chain: survival – needs – values – ethics – social contract – morality - honour.

I'd call that Universal Taxonomy, but it requires that each step be necessary given the definitions you're using, and i don't see that necessity, or that those definitions are adequate to the task. I believe you Can tie honor to survival, but not by that chain of reasoning.

>And, most important to the readers of this book: scientists have a very special moral obligation to humanity. No matter what the justification, do not help immoral leaders acquire the tools they need to force their will on the citizenry. Do not participate in weapons development and do not work for industries that damage the environment. If you do, you will betray the highest loyalty: to life, including yours and your loved ones.

I have a moral shortcut to explain the duty of scientists. The original principle is Noblesse Oblige but it can be expanded neatly to cover scientists owing a debt of knowledge to the ignorant, for example. The duty to do no harm is the other side of the coin. Before any of this is relevant, society must provide people a substrate in which to adequately seek out their best self, to find and fulfill their interests, priorities, and skills.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Resolving conflicting loyalties...

Post by RCSaunders »

Ned wrote: Sat May 16, 2015 1:02 am The human species is a tribal species...
Since you went of the rails there, everything else is wrong!
Post Reply