The Enlightenment never explicitly addressed morality.
Veblen traces liberal ethics back to Locke's idea of natural rights.
The modern theories of property run back to Locke, or to some source which for the present purpose is equivalent to Locke; who, on this as on other institutional questions, has been proved by the test of time to be a competent spokesman for modern culture in these premises. A detailed examination of how the matter stood in the theoretical respect before Locke, and whence, and by what process of selection and digestion, Locke derived his views, would lead too far afield. The theory is sufficiently familiar, for in substance it is, and for the better part of two centuries has been, held as an article of common sense by nearly all men who have spoken for the institution of property, with the exception of some few and late doubters. This modern European, common-sense theory says that ownership is a "Natural Right." What a man has made, whatsoever "he hath mixed his labor with," that he has thereby made his property. It is his to do with it as he will. He has extended to the object of his labor that discretionary control which in the nature of things he of right exercises over the motions of his own person. It is his in the nature of things by virtue of his having made it. "Thus labor, in the beginning, gave a right of property." The personal force, the functional efficiency of the workman shaping material facts to human use, is in this doctrine accepted as the definitive, axiomatic ground of ownership; behind this the argument does not penetrate, except it be to trace the workman's creative efficiency back to its ulterior source in the creative efficiency of the Deity, the "Great Artificer." With the early spokesmen of natural rights, whether they speak for ownership or for other natural rights, it is customary to rest the case finally on the creator's discretionary dispositions and workmanlike efficiency. But the reference of natural rights back to the choice and creative work of the Deity has, even in Locke, an air of being in some degree perfunctory; and later in the life-history of the natural-rights doctrine it falls into abeyance; whereas the central tenet, that ownership is a natural right resting on the productive work and the discretionary choice of the owner, gradually rises superior to criticism and gathers axiomatic certitude. The Creator presently, in the course of the eighteenth century, drops out of the theory of ownership.
This modern European, common-sense theory says that ownership is a "Natural Right." What a man has made, whatsoever "he hath mixed his labor with," that he has thereby made his property. It is his to do with it as he will. He has extended to the object of his labor that discretionary control which in the nature of things he of right exercises over the motions of his own person. It is his in the nature of things by virtue of his having made it. "Thus labor, in the beginning, gave a right of property." The personal force, the functional efficiency of the workman shaping material facts to human use, is in this doctrine accepted as the definitive, axiomatic ground of ownership; behind this the argument does not penetrate, except it be to trace the workman's creative efficiency back to its ulterior source in the creative efficiency of the Deity, the "Great Artificer." With the early spokesmen of natural rights, whether they speak for ownership or for other natural rights, it is customary to rest the case finally on the creator's discretionary dispositions and workmanlike efficiency. But the reference of natural rights back to the choice and creative work of the Deity has, even in Locke, an air of being in some degree perfunctory; and later in the life-history of the natural-rights doctrine it falls into abeyance; whereas the central tenet, that ownership is a natural right resting on the productive work and the discretionary choice of the owner, gradually rises superior to criticism and gathers axiomatic certitude. The Creator presently, in the course of the eighteenth century, drops out of the theory of ownership.
Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is
It's certainly not rigorous, and the idea that there's such a thing as 'universal law' which applies equally to every individual in similar situations is really rather silly.
A more basic moral problem seems to be that a minority of individuals sees power as an end in itself, while a majority see mutual support as an end in itself.
Another segment of the population will happily follow whatever morality it's told to follow without questioning it.
It probably isn't possible to reconcile those positions. I'd guess the best you can hope for is creating a framework in which predators are forced to justify their existence by creating positive outcomes rather than disastrous ones.
'Democracy' is not a practical aim, it's an abstract ideal. Which is why it's so easy to hijack the word and make it mean 'Colonial rule by an installed thug' - and keep a straight face.
'Open access to policy influence without filtering by cash or caste' is more of a practical aim.
Of course it's not any kind of philosophical absolute. But it doesn't need to be - it just needs to create results which everyone can experience directly.
That, then turns ethics into a political problem because you need to get a large supermajority of the population to agree to the practical aims before they can agree on what constitutes ethical behaviour.
Individual sovereignty, however unrealistic and ultimately destructive, is an easy sell. A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
That, then turns ethics into a political problem
Ethics is always a political problem - abstract ethics become meaningless without practical relationships with other people and the environment.
Individual sovereignty, however unrealistic and ultimately destructive, is an easy sell.
Exactly. But it's inherently and automatically corrosive to practical relationships - unless it's tempered with some other more inclusive ethical basis.
One of those relationship types has to be a comprehensive innoculation against charismatic leader/follower relationships.
It would probably be better still to round up all the predators and keep a close and permanent eye on them.
If you deal with the predators effectively, I think everything else gets very much easier. It's the predators who parasitise tribalism, and without out them it becomes much less of a problem.
I'm not sure what 'deal with' would mean in practice. I'm certainly not proposing shooting them all - more some sort of formal oversight and rechanneling of energies, with limited freedom for those who can't contribute.
Of course this seems draconian, and it goes against our indoctrination into the mythology of perfect personal freedom. But it's less draconian than allowing Hitlers, Mugabes and Bushes to run things. Because all they'll do is round up people anyway - and probably kill them too, one way or another.
If you deal with the predators effectively
problem being that to do that you need predators, of an incorruptible character, to boot.
then how do you keep them honest?
eliot spitzer comes to mind... ~Government budget deficits are not nearly as dangerous as the deficits we have created in vital and complex natural systems.~ Naomi Klein.
i'd love to believe that, it would take genetic manipulation.
i hate it, the chinese do it, and we haven't for a while, (nuremberg notwithstanding) but execution would be the only fate that would put the fear of godde into them enough to stay on the straight and narrow, and even then some psycho risk-junkies would crap out, just to see if they could.
it's just so hard to eradicate selfishness and the corollary disprespect once it's installed in the person's OS from childhood, until we raise everyone with a conscience people will act out, and never so much as when they can gamble everything on it...
same reasons priests rape kids, the thrill of what's taboo, sociopathic urge to push the envelope in living a double life...
if you can't find /or have blocked out real, then the ache of life lacking meaning can give rise to a compulsion in some to go to the other edge, to live life with greater complexity and inner drama than what most accept more or less grumblingly...
that's what happens when adult bodies encase immature, unevolved value systems, it's fucked but there it is.
extreme fear would keep them straight, until we raise enough generations right, without implanting the terrible fears and insecurities, the existential dread that then gets covered up by anger, slow or fast-burning, because. their. life. should. be. better. than. this. they. got. gypped. and. someone. is. going. to. pay.
whoa this sounds like i'm channeling tony perkins on his way to the shower...
raise 'em right, or have to go medieval on 'em later. cast secret ballots for who gets to be executioner, and of course cut him/her some slack over and above the fat paycheck (to pay for therapy?), hell they should have given eliot all the naughties he wanted, he was sticking it the Man, (as well as his 'escorts'!
semi-snark ~Government budget deficits are not nearly as dangerous as the deficits we have created in vital and complex natural systems.~ Naomi Klein.
It would probably be better still to round up all the predators and keep a close and permanent eye on them.If you deal with the predators effectively, I think everything else gets very much easier. It's the predators who parasitise tribalism, and without out them it becomes much less of a problem.
The problem is that those you call "predators" are not a specific, predetermined category. Most of the people, including probably you and me can become a "predator" (or behave like one) in certain situations. And it is impossible to predict if somebody could become a "predator" or not. History is full of examples of people who started as selfless idealists and, once in power (or after a certain time in power) started to behave as "predators"... "Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes" Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet
In this sense "moral" or "morality" derives from the latin mores, which in some of its senses referred to what was right according to custom and was understood to vary from society to society: e.g. sexual customs were known to vary from one group of people to another and what was right depended on the customs or mores of that society. There was multi-culturalism even in Roman times! As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
We need a new term adequate to the task at hand. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
a minority of individuals sees power as an end in itself, while a majority see mutual support as an end in itself
That minority of power individuals looks pretty cooperative among themselves, while the majority does actually very little for mutual support. How much of their effort is not directed towards minute needs of themselves or serving the power minority? There seems to be little confidence that doing good to others is reasonable.
Dan Ariely's book, Predictably Irrational, among its other virtues, describes experimental behavioral economics results that reveal the fragility of social norms when these are forced into competition with market norms. It's a fascinating and sometimes profoundly disturbing book. I highly recommend it, even to those who have been casually following the literature in the area. (Fun to read, too.) Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.
The Authoritarians.
The authoritarian followers.
....while a majority see mutual support as an end in itself
The proverbial 'good men and women who mustn't stand idly by whilst evil flourishes'.
Have you read any of the above linked Professors' book? Or did I hear about it here from you? It's pretty much an expounding of your comment.
