Captain Dave will under no circumstance torture a prisoner (open morality). Captain Jim will torture a prisoner when he considers such action will save the lives of his platoon (closed morality).
“The two main concepts of ethics are those of the right and the good; the concept of a morally worthy person is, I believe, derived from them.†This quote and any others are from “A Theory of Justice†by John Rawls.
In teleological (explaining phenomena by final causes) theories of ethics the good is defined independently from the right.
The attitude of the individual is to seek the satisfaction of desire, more appropriately it is “the satisfaction of rational desireâ€. Many people find that society should be just an extension of this attitude. The good, for society, is the satisfaction of rational desire. The right is that which maximizes the good.
Others in society reject this utilitarian view and find that the right comes before the good and embodies a boundary for the good. The right becomes a principle that has priority over the good.
Captain Dave rejects the utilitarian view of morality (open morality). Captain Jim embraces the utilitarian view of morality (closed morality).
Morality/ethics is a matter pertaining only to the relationship between subjects and thus there is nothing objective about it. All such matters are subjective and thus relative. Religion interjects God into the matter and thus makes it a matter of absolutes for believers.
Many individuals think of the individual as constituted by the community to which s/he belongs—their value is dependent to a large extent upon the community. It is this interdependence upon the community that makes ideology so very potent. For the individual who embraces closed morality the ideological association is more important than to the person with an open morality.
I think there is something to be said about universal recognition of a moral/immoral act and how it should differ from the universal existence of moral/immoral acts (categorical). Either that or I’m being unclear as to what I’m trying to say. Or perhaps what I’m trying to point out is the equivocation on the word “universal”. The first being that different cultures/societies happen to have the same view of an act, say murder: it is immoral. The second I meant to be “objective” morality: there is such a thing as categorical existence of morality.
I have made several attempts to get at a fundamental explanation of what you are talking about but I am afraid I do not have the philosophical sophistication to do so.
I want to say that this principle of justice derived by Rawls is universal to all humans because all humans would agree with the conclusion if properly considered. I certainly do not think I nor anyone else could prove such by using objective standards of proof.
I do not have the political sophistication to answer all of your questions with total confidence.
I suspect all matters of morality are subjective and relative. I think all things that physics deals with are objective when ideal conditions prevail.
I think that all moral matters, when considering a closed moral position, are dependent upon ideology. In an open moral position, perhaps not all, positions are deontological (i.e. dependent upon principles derived to be universal in application).
Religion is an ideology and specifies that a god determines the morality of all actions and god sends messages to the faithful via the clergy as to what is moral in specific situations.
In closed moral situations when the individual is not guided by religious ideology then other ideologies determine the moral value. Ideology is more important to a person in a closed morality situation than in an open moral situation.
I’ve been reading “The Heart of Darkness,” by Joseph Conrad which has as a major theme this idea of a closed morality. Kurtz takes matters into his own hands, because, as the narrator explains, the wilderness has taken possession of him. He is no longer bound by the laws and morals of western civilization, and so his own methods, gestated in the expanse of his meglomania, have become the means by which all law is formed. Morality, and ethics are subject to him, or so he thinks, within the closed field of the reach of his power.
I thought I’d have more time for this post before I started, so unfortunately I’m going to have to cut this short.
No need for philosophical sophistication. Just focus on the way we use the word “universal”: does it mean "objective, as in anyone can understand, experience, think of morality as if it is a color or an object that is undeniably out there, ready for us to perceive/think/understand like the sun rising in the morning. Or does it just mean what you say here:
This is the distinction I wanted to make: does universal mean agreement in taste, that is, different cultures/societies seem to, or happen to agree, or would agree given reasonable explanation on what is moral/immoral. [remember, an explanation is not a proof].
I agree with what you say, we cannot prove by “objective standards” what is moral. Someone else said, oh Dr. Krankenkopf, this: "Whose morality is “objectiveâ€? What do the terms “objective†and “subjective†mean? Is it all “relative”? "
Every other subject is not also yet another distinct object? It would seem to me that how we act in accordance to other objects is not so terribly diverse as to be explained away by relationships between subjects. It isn’t as if you can have one without the other.
As for rationally good, it surprises me how often people attempt to ground ethics under the auspices of reason or rational thought. Usually these attempts are mistaken, because what is truly rational is demonstratively true. In point of fact, it is necessarily, undeniably so. They have a word for people who deny it anyway, it is called…irrational.
As I understand it for closed morality the right means to maximize the good. For the open morality right trumps good. In the US we place the right in our constitution and the good is up for grabs but the Supreme Court decides when the good chosen inhibits the right in which case the good is struck down.
No need for philosophical sophistication. Just focus on the way we use the word “universal”: does it mean "objective, as in anyone can understand, experience, think of morality as if it is a color or an object that is undeniably