The basics of - Morality & Ethics part 3

Recently I've been pondering a thought.

Is "vested interest" and what is deemed "appropriate" replacing the human progression towards "universal good"?

Universal good in this context being, opportunity, parity, education, prospects, happiness, and the access to sufficient means to provide for ones self and ones family.

It kinda ties into the 3rd part of my philosophical mini series:

Applied Ethics.

Consider the theatre of politics. Very often lobby groups will push their agenda and may, via quiet meetings with various people, agree to support certain other agenda's or goals - IF their own needs are met. This in essence is the very spirit of collaborative working and compromise, but the driver, or "maxim" to use Kant's expression, is merely a vested interest in a certain type of outcome.

Arguably an immoral use of a system.

BUT if that lobby group happens to be trans rights, or funding for pre natal hospital care, or women's access to health care, or ACLU, the Gun lobby, Oil industry, even evangelical groups etc, then people will make various decisions regarding the morality of the lobbying process based on the cause that is being lobbied for.

Me for instance, I'd suggest trans rights would be a "good cause" but judging by the comments section in the lower third of the internet, I'm sure many would disagree. The reasoning behind a decision as to the morality of a given goal or methodology could be the application of the consequential, or maybe duty bound theories.

For example I believe it (trans rights) an ethical cause because the outcome of success would see an improvement in peoples lives, and improvement in their access to the universal goods listed above. An opponent might disagree on religious or scientific grounds, since they subscribe to a view that the concept of "trans" isn't a legitimate way of being and thus to promote it is ethically wrong, since its harmful in wider sense, regardless of the consequences of such a view point to a given indivudal.

Of course I am trans. ( Or, if your an opponent of that concept, you would have to accept that I at least believe myself thus, even were you to disagree) So does that place me in the the vested interest category? You betcha it does. Does that undermine my arguments? No, only my perceived (and actual) impartiality.

That issue of impartiality is the central reason for my preference to look at the trans issue through the lens of anthropological and philosophical thought, rather than the reverse, which is to perceive everything in life through the lens of my vested interest in the trans question. If (some of) the arguments made by the trans community on its own behalf cannot stand up to structured critical scrutiny, they are thus proven as bad arguments. That fact doesn't change, regardless of how I feel about the underlying wider context.

It's small though signiifcant effort on my part to "balance the books" as it were.

Back in my nursing days I often considered the use of the word "appropriate" in the medical context. Seldom would you hear  "right", "wrong" or "good" "bad" used in the context of an action pertaining to a patients care.

The "most appropriate treatment" was the universal phrase.

Yet this, like many things is open to interpretation. Appropriate for whom? The establishment? The patient? The family? The wider society?

This "appropriate argument" is raging in America at the present with regard to not just trans issues, but a whole swathe of the population for whom it is deemed "inappropriate" by some to provide the basics of what we in the UK have come to expect of a healthcare system.

The ACA was America's first foray for many years into addressing its healthcare access disparity. Yet still some people wanted to pull it down, presumably for their own vested interests rather than the common of access to a universal good. (health)

After all, History will record that it was postulated and set up by a black guy. Certain sections of  todays America simply won't stand for that. Nor the idea that "an underserving poor" can access health care that "they pay for". Both premises are of course open to fairly stringent rebuttal, yet  a significant number of people still cling to these types of "moral" viewpoints.

I read recently of the case of a poorly baby girl. Again this is in America. She was denied treatment for a minor, yet potentially serious condition. One easily sorted within todays modern medical world.

The reason for the denial of health care to this infant? Her parents were Lesbian and the Dr objected to treatment on the basis of religious moral objection to the parental lifestyle.

Consider the hypocratic oath: written by Hippocrates, in ancient greek times, circa 300BC (damn those clever greeks again!) A modern version of which is shown below:

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

Consider those lines of the text in bold. The doctor in question cited "religious objections". Not to the treatment, but to the actions of a family member of the patient. 

Religious/ethical exceptions do apply in the UK and US. To cases of abortion for example. However the essential difference here is that in the case of abortion, medical personnel object to the action and/or proceedure they are being asked to perform, and not an extraneous factor that is irrelevant to the treatment of the patient. 

Duty based theories of right and wrong, such as those derived via a literal interpretation of some of the Christian teachings, would suggest this Dr "may" have a case. However, those same arguments would preclude her from treating people who are Bisexual, polyamorous, or eat shell fish and wear mixed fibre cloth. (Leviticus) Thus it would seem theres an inherent objection present and the  religious argument is brought out when convenient. Where have heard that before? 

Furthermore in taking the hippocratic oath, or subscribing to the broader tenant of it meaning, by virtue of being a Doctor, there is an expectation to put aside personal and moral view points and act "in the interest of the patient" at all times. Clearly the Doctor is in breach of that specific and central premise of being a healer of others. 

Is she therefore demonstrating a fitness of judgment sufficient to the work of a Doctor? You decide. 

It raises an interesting point however. The separation between church and state. Or moreover Church and legislature. Something the USA is again currently wrestling with. Religion is a duty based theory or morality and ethical out come. It presupposes right and wrong actions as prescribed via it's teachings and disregards the outcome of those actions. Law is utilitarian, derived from a branch of consequential theory. Creating either the greatest "happiness" or the least "sadness" for people via prior examination of the potential outcomes of any decision.

It doesn't take much to deduce that the two are in many ways mutually exclusive.

So Applied Ethics is a minefield. Since the answer one gets or seeks, in response to ethical questions depends almost entirely on which ethical model one uses to frame those questions. The unscrupulous will use one or other ethical model to justify their actions in rebuttal of condemnation from those who see things differently.

Philosophers are generally agreed that the existence of human nature is a contentious concept, since it would contravene the free will argument and thus responsibility for our own actions.  But, given all the above, and the contradictory outcomes inherent to differing views of what it means to be/do good or bad, it it puts me in mind of Moral Relativism.

The first law of Einstein's theory of relatively suggested that "everything will be measured in relation to Something else"

And so it is with Ethics. judgments cannot exist in a vacuum. They must be compared to something, be it history, or examples of another viewpoint.  To say Morality is relative, in as much as it shifts with time and perception, is true enough. After all what was once viewed as immoral is now not, and what was once viewed as moral is not now so. The two major examples in recent times being homosexuality and Slavery. Of course there are some who still condemn homosexuality on the basis of they preferred moral framework, yet that stance carries all the legitimacy of an opinion, if not backed up by reason.

So, to conclude my mini series on ethics and the morality of actions, thoughts and intent. I will once again revisit a paraphrasing of the words of Dr John Corivino, for I cannot put it any better. (I hope he will forgive me the small change)

---------------------------

I'm not suggesting to you "don't make moral judgements",

I'm asking to make sure you have reasons for the moral judgements that you make. 

To put yourself in someone else shoes, before you judge them. 
Not to Judge someone on how they live and love, but on whether they Live and love.

----------------------------

Sarah.

The basics of - Morality and Ethics part 2

Hi,

Welcome to the second instalment of "part 2" in this series where i write about "the basics of philosophy by Nigel Warburton"

I part 1 we discussed questions surrounding the various versions of God.

In the first instalment of the part 2 about Ethics i discussed a few of the theories that define what may or may not be considered "Moral", or "Ethical" actions.

Here in the second instalment we take  look at Meta Ethics. thats is the study of theories about those central theories, and applications of them

In his book Nigel looks at Naturalism, Relativism, and Emotivism. A brief discussion of these will bring into focus some of the  things that the  first order theories of duty, consequentialism and Virtue cannot fully explore.

Naturalism.

In essence a theory that postulates formations of value based ethical judgments following on from directly discoverable scientific facts. Born from utilitarianism, and a  description of human nature, which leads to how we ought to behave. At it's core it presupposes a biological or naturally occurring reason for things to be as they are and moral judgements  as to what to do about that knowledge follow from that.

Problems with naturalism.

How can one link facts to value based judgments? One does not directly lead to the other, in a  relevant and quantitative  sense, except via the  method of opinion.

It may be a fact that I am fat for instance. Some might see that as inherent proof of my laziness, or perhaps a suggestion of an injury that precludes sufficient exercise. Both of these  are born of opinion and do not directly link to the  fact that i am fat.

So, ought we to make these  judgments of fat people based on our own perceptions of  them? David Hulme first raised this objection to naturalism by demonstrating that philosophers move, as i have done here, towards  "what we ought to do" from "what is", without further discussion.

To link this to a real world question. Arguments as to the causality of trans gender, or homosexuality. Both exist in the realm of science. Or to put it another way, discoverable biological or physiological fact. The Naturalist would argue therefore that the value placed on homosexuality and or transgender issues does directly follow from thees arguments, where as the anti naturist would suggest further debate is needed.

It's kinda like the "I was born this way, therefore it's natural, therefore its ok" argument.

On the surface this seems fine. But what of other traits that we are born with? Aggression, intolerance, integrity, or lack thereof? Just because we are born with traits doesn't mean we "ought to" act on them. Thus the presence of scientific knowledge regarding causality and reasoning about how homosexuality, transgender or any other trait to exist will not tell us what to do about it.

Questions surrounding human nature also play into this argument. Since if Human nature is given too much credence then it presupposes a somewhat passenger like life for humans. It diminishes "free will" and thus our responsibility for our own actions. How far each of these opposing arguments, "human nature" and "free will" play into each other becomes a matter for debate as too much emphasis on human nature leads us to devolve ourselves from responsibility for our failings at the species level. Its an interesting question when one considers the field of anthropology. Looking at humans as animals, subject to the same evolutionary forces that others on this planet live under. Animals is discussed in the next chapter... so i'll revisit this.

Relativism. 

Consider two areas of the world. Saudi Arabia and the UK. the laws in each country for the basis of their moral structure for ma societal POV. Yet one can be killed in Saudi, for committing an offence that in the UK would not even be considered so.

This is "moral relativism". The theory that different societies have differing views fright and wrong and thus an individuals perception of right and wrong is dependent on one's society. Which as we know is an accident of birth.

So..are ideas of "right" and "wrong" therefore definitive or subjective?

Consider the historical context as well as geographical. Years ago slavery was acceptable and not so long ago homosexuality was illegal in Britain. The case of Allan Turing, the father of modern computing and robotics remains a great moral question. His story was made into film, starring Benedict Cumberbatch, If you haven't seen "The imitation game" I heartily recommend it.

Two criticism of the relativism argument are firstly that "all morals are relative but relativism is true" which is almost animal farmesque in its complicit contradiction, and secondly that "what defines a society" is open to interpretation since it need not be a legal or country based definition.

This is highlighted by the case of Marine A. Sgt Blackman, killed a wounded Taliban fighter in Afghanistan and was subsequently tried and convicted of murder in a uk courts marshal. Recently the murder conviction was ruled unsafe on evidence of mental health considerations. The moral relativism here are that one can arguably say Soldiers or the military are their own society since they do have a different moral code to the average civilian, specifically to use the christian phrasing, "thou shall not kill".

The situational issues of where Sgt Blackman was also bear thought. It certainly wasn't what we in the peaceful west might call an "ordinary societal construct".  Thus can we reasonably suggest that ordinary societal rules should apply? Then their are the legal issues. The relative legality of "when" the afghan man was shot, not whether. Arguably it wasn't murder that Sgt Blackman was convicted of, rather it was "unsanctioned" murder, by virtue of the legal change inherent over those few minutes. Had the afghan man died by virtue of an exchange of fire, he would still have been "murdered" in the philosophical sense of one human killing and other deliberately, but it would have been legal and therefore by extension relatively morally justified for the POV of UK forces. Though not so by the afghan side. There are many other arguments in the case of Sgt Blackman, but this gives a flavour of the contradictory and relative nature of morality and legality based on situation.

Emotivism

"homosexuality is wrong"

Torture wrong"

"telling a lie is wrong"

"going against gods will is wrong"

Emotivism would suggest all these statements above, which are ethical statements of position, are meaningless. That is to say that in and of themselves they give not facts, only opinions. And as such should be accorded the same level of legitimacy. 

This it perhaps a weird one to get ones head around. exact when one asks the  question "why" of any of these statements. In doing so and opening the debate we then move from statement of opinion into discussion of reason why, factual or conceptual arguments as to evidence or moral theory. Thus Whilst once can quite easily see that bare statements have limited intrinsic value, the value of exploration of these statements cannot be understated. 

The major criticism of Emotivism is that it reduces significant and very weighty matters to mere triviality. If we simply decided that the statement "torture is wrong' was a matter of personal choice, it's not hard to see the consequences for society as whole. 

So there you have it. Three "meta ethical"theories of what "right" and "wrong" might mean. Theories that lean on the 1st level descriptions of ethical thought and attempt to further define Societal Ethical questions. In a sense, one can think of the first order theories being concerned with the individual relating to the world, and the second order meta ethical ones taking a broader societal view. One of humans examining how we deal en mass with societal ethical questions rather than individual ones. 

Of course theres over lap, and the boundaries are never clear, but hey, that's philosophy for ya...you want facts, try science! It's down the hall third door on the left! 

Tata! 

part three on applied ethical questions is found here! 

Sarah

Emotional catharsis

Hello people of the world.

Throughout The week I've written part three of my Ethical mini series, but I can't post it yet cos I haven't written part two. In truth, part three wrote itself. I just kinda poured my thoughts into the keyboard and eh voila ... a blog article.

I then sat and watched a movie. Troy, with Brad Pitt playing the role of Achilles, Orlando bloom, and Eric Banna as his opposing Princes of Troy. Perhaps you've seen it? If not its worth look.

I took to it when it first came out, as it eloquently portrays the absurdity of the human condition, from greed & war, to love, desire, and immortality.

Indeed in it there is a line.. spoken by Achilles.

"We men are wretched things"

Very apt I thought. 

I've only recently begun reading about philosophy in the academic sense, but it would seem I've always had a philosophical approach in many ways. 

This week I've been looking after my daughter. A some times precocious 13 yr old with a good heart and steady head. She's developing an enquiring mind and still has that love of life imbued by her young years. It's a good start in many ways.

And yet......tomorrow we road trip back to her mums, 150 miles south of me, until the next school holidays or trip north. I find myself lamenting the distance. yet extraneous factors make it near impossible to remedy that presently.

Actually that's the hardest part of being "me". Living with the consequences of my actions, when viewing those consequences from the vantage point of their effect on others. I currently cannot provide for Rachel as I would like. I don't mean Mac books, and new phones or stuff from amazon although thats all very nice, and great in its own way. I mean by having a full fridge. By being able to replace her broken bed,  and by being able to do those unseen planning things that lead to availability of university opportunities, or mean that college fees are no barrier to academic goals and endeavour.

Why is this so? Well because I'm not currently employed financially, despite a CV as long as your arm and, if I may say so myself, a pretty decent work ethic. Of course I'm not alone in this, but every rebuttal, every unanswered email or ignored enquiry. Every botched interview because when I walk in people make judgements, is a continued disadvantage not just to me, but to the future aspiration of a 13 yr old girl who, frankly, didn't ask for this shit.

Yeah , ok. I'm fed up. Ya got me. Guilty as charged.

But where does all this soul searching get me? If reflection has a purpose it's to learn and grow.. not to wallow and moan. So where's the lesson and opportunity in this?

To be honest its unclear.. You see, there comes point where the results of our action are outside our control. I can, and will continue to apply, create opportunity, talk to people and, in as much as possible, believe the best of people. But it's not in my power to hire me into a job. That power rests with others, thus my efforts seem fruitless and devoid of control of any outcome.

I'm sure many of you will have seen this graph from the work of a Dr Karasek et al,

Anyone who finds themselves in box D, with high Demands and low control of outcome is in for a rough ride. The study was  done with reference to work based stress, however pretty much all those who are unemployed, and strive not to be, live in Box D permanently. 24 7. Its unpleasant after a protracted period.

So I guess the answer to my own internal questioning is actually a question. "How does one retake that control?" A few years back I rather belligerently said "if no fecker is gonna give me a job i'll bloody well create my own" Perhaps then self employment is the way. That's a hard road to travel and an even harder one to take to successful conclusion. Particularly when feeling beleaguered and distrustful of human nature. Self employment is an act of complete non cynical belief. A significant challenge for one such as myself at present.

Perhaps then it's time to widen the net. The north east is a pretty awful place for jobs, unless you're in specific industries. So why not look elsewhere?

I've a busy week coming up, with several long term projects coming to a close, and a few of those already mentioned opportunities to explore. Perhaps then it's the ideal time to reframe the question and ask not so much "what next?" as "where next?"

You remember that definition of insanity? Repeatedly doing the same thing whilst looking for different results?

Perhaps then it's time to change up the game. Not for my sake, but for that of a young woman's future.

And there's the lesson. It's not about me. I stopped being a priority early in the morning of the1st of October 2003, when I officially became "Dad" A title that I oddly still hold today despite the transition stuff, which is kinda an inside joke.

That moment, and all that goes with it, is hands down the best, and most scary outcome of life to date.

So, Where to next?

;-)

More positive pondering, for a change.

Hey all.

Well well, if you've been reading my recent blogs, I think you might forgive me for using a technical term when I say:

"Thee been chatting some heavy shit lately" 

All this analytical writing, and somewhat academic, dare I say "highbrow stuff" can get bit serious at times.

So, lets kick back, chill, just breathe a little. After all, summer is juuuust around the corner, so why not Knock on the sky and and listen to the echo.... echo... echo...

I'm sat here, the day after having had an unexpectedly quiet afternoon/evening. The result of a poorly teenage daughter who has spent most of the day asleep. (Now you might say thats normal teenage behaviour and ok, but in this case twas an exception)

As a result I ended up spending bit of time on the phone to both the bairn's mum and Gran, organising stuff, after which I found myself at loose end.

So, I've had a bit of time to just wander around the house, catch up on critical role and look out the window at the sunshine.

The T130 is languishing in the kitchen corner quietly talking to me, whispering "service my seat post - the sun is shining it's time we were out on the track". I haven't actually ridden the bike since I left the cycle biz in Sept of last year. You know that thing that happens when you take something you really enjoy and turn it into "work"? Yeah, takes the shine off things doesn't it? Particularly when you chuck in a dose of questionable professional stuff...leaves a bad takes in the mouth by association.  but anyhoo this isn't a moan tis a chill out.

So once the bairns back on her feet, and back to school in a week or so, I'm gonna get the bike sorted and revisit some old friends that I haven't seen since last year. The Derwent walk. Hamsterley forest tracks, and probably chop well. This year though I guess I need to get creative, finding a few new routes locally and in the process loses a few lbs without spending too many ££'s on fueling Vanessa.

Jobs wise thees not much to do with Jonny 5. I picked up a hutchinson rear tyre  few weeks back for 13 quid.. (kevlar folding 60tpi multi conditions thing. not bad and much better than the full £50 retail!) Obviously theres the seat post, which currently has more play in it than a land rover prop shaft. Then I think the rear shock could do with a bit of TLC. 

The 130 has done (according to Strava) 3,158 km Only about 700km short of my total over all distance. (on multiple bikes.) This is roughly equal to about 160hrs ish. So, tis definitely due some proper spanner time. 

I'm looking forward to a bit of "kissing the summer wind" and getting some dust on the tyres from the local trails. 

I wonder what new types of weird and "high brow heavy shit" i'll dream up on the way?

Stay tuned!

Sarah

PS:

If you're interested in bikes, and the stuff I've gotten up to, then have look at "The spoken sprocket bog" which I created before this one. It's designed to be little more techie. But since I haven't really done anything.. i haven't written anything over there in quite a while.

The Spoken Sprocket Blog

Tata!

So, "The basics of" - Morality & Ethics part 1

Hello all you lovely people of the world.

It has been a while since the first part of my discussion of "The basics of philosophy" by Nigel Warburton, In writing this the second instalment, looking at right and wrong, I've decided to split the subject into 3 parts.

1) Theoretical models of morality
2) Meta Ethics
3) Application

Otherwise you would need about 6 hours to read a massive amount of text in one single blog entry that probably wouldn't do the subject justice and would very likely leave you with square eyes and a scrambled brain!

Regular readers will have noted a pervasive thread of ethical discourse in my recent blogs, and obviously that's because all my thoughts about the application of these concepts inevitably seep into other writings when trying to make any given point. Also just in case you were wondering, the terms "Ethical" and "Moral" are often used interchangeably. Ethics is the study of that which makes things right or wrong, and is also occasionally called "Moral philosophy".

So, to recap and clarify some the ethical models that I have referenced in recent Articles

Duty based theories:

i Christian -judaeo tradition ethics

Religious views of morality are by design dependent on the teachings of the religion in question. Most - though not all - religions suggest an all powerful creator being. That being's will is said to be supremely good, therefore by extension anything deemed as "good" by that being must be morally and ethically sound.

This argument has two defining elements:

Firstly, It presupposes the existence of the supreme being which as you'll have seen in my first article in this series is itself open to philosophical question and scrutiny.

Secondly this approach is suggestive that actions are either "good" or "bad" irrespective of the consequences of those actions.

Religious deity based morality also invites the question, "Is what a deity defines as good actually good because they say it to be so, or do they say it is so, merely because a given action is already good?"

Dependent on ones point of view on this last question, It can lead to a some very odd actions being deemed to be "moral" or conversely it reduces the "all powerful deity" to a being subject to a higher power, that of predetermined and separate laws of ethical and unethical action.

ii Kantian ethics

Emmanuel Kant took a view that it was ones duty to act in a moral way. He posed the question "what is a moral action?" As a result he devised things called Maxims, which he defined as the "thought behind the action" what we today might call a motivation. Crucially Kant devolved this process from any emotional input. It is a purely rational thought mechanism.

This is useful since it can distinguish between identical actions that have very different maxim's and thus may be on opposite sides of the moral argument.

Consider a scenario where you discover an injured person by the side of the road. You may decide to help them, and the outcome would therefore be beneficial to the person.

However this result can be achieved via two Maxim's:

"Help those in need", or "Help those in need and you shall be rewarded"

Arguably the second one is a less moral version of the first, since it predisposes personal gain from what is, at least outwardly, an apparently self-less act. Thus the action is not entirely driven by a sense of duty.

Kant sets out his version of categorical imperatives, or rules if you will, that suggest a framework on which to hang judgment of our actions in the moral sense, chief amongst them being:

"Treat other people as ends in themselves, never as means to an end" 

Which roughly fits with a more commonly heard christian tradition ethic in todays language of:

"Do unto others as you have them do to you"

The main criticism of Kant's theory is that it can of course be demonstrated to be used with very immoral maxims, and in some ways doesn't really tell us what we should do, just how to judge what we might. There are also moral dilemma's where some immoral acts based on breaking a maxim might lead to a moral outcome. For example, not telling a gunman where his target is, if you actually do know that information. This goes against "You should always tell the truth" but may in effect save someones life. "The lesser of two evils..." so to speak. 

Consequentialist theory

This problem with Kant's view of morality brings us nicely onto the next ethical model. That of consequence. Consequentialism, as the name implies, looks at the outcomes of actions to determine the nature of whether that action is moral or not. The best known of these is utilitarianism. The underpinning principle of good moral action in this case is defined as "that which brings the greatest good to the greatest number of people"

It is a system that very broadly encompasses much of the legal systems of the western world. Since rule based utilitarianism could be said to be a version of "law" by which people live their lives.

However. As has been discussed in much of my recent writings, pure application of this method does lead to under representation of the minority groups of society, Since by virtue of their being in the minority they will always be disadvantaged in terms of that defining principle. Plus, there is the ever present question of where does one draw the line's when considering actions that are good for one group but evidently bad or questionable for another.

One way to address this is to apply Negative utilitarianism. Basing ones actions on the outcome that produces the least amount of suffering rather than the greatest amount of a universal good, (happiness)

Both of these have limitations, and still bring up situational moral dilemmas. Also there are problems of weighing one action against another and the possible justification of immoral actions based on the idea of the greater good. (For example, how many times has that argument been used as a reason for going to war?)

Virtue based theory.

Rising from a study of Aristotle's Nicomachean ethics, Virtue theorists considered the question,

"How should one live their life?

The answer was to cultivate the virtues, and thus "flourish", leading a successful and prosperous life. This you might think is very similar to the Kantian ethics version of a Maxim, which it is, but with one critical difference. Virtue theorists included the emotional aspect of human intention. 

Bringing emotion into a central role allowed discussion of things like compassion, generosity, and charity. It raised the issue of why we might act to benefit our fellow humans from one of mere duty to one of empathy, and being able to appreciate the consequences of their situation through a form of kin ship with them. 

It encourages one to look for the similarities between different peoples, actions, viewpoints etc, and base ones actions from those observations.

The criticism of virtue based theory is simply, "what is to be classed as a virtue?" There is still much discussion around what to include in a list of virtues, since "That which allows one to flourish" is open to interpretation. 

Additionally people change, their inherent tendencies altering over time with experience. Thus one might start off with the virtue of generosity, but having been conned in the  past by an immoral individual, reassess that view in later life. There is also the consideration of "Human Nature" and arguments as to what that is, or if it exists. 

These are three of the major ethical theories that exist. There are others, and this page here gives a very brief breakdown of each, including those discussed here. 

One slightly confusing thing however, that some of you might have noticed, is that in all of the above  there still isn't a clear definitional of what is "right" or "wrong" in the moral context. 

To answer that it is necessary to study and theorise on the ethical theories. A field known a "Meta Ethics" 

And that we will leave till part 2. 

Sarah 

Gender month, Categorical thinking and a 3000 year old question.

Disclaimer.

This piece was originally written on behalf of the Queerness, to be posted this month. However, since some conversations with a few local trans people and emerging divergent views, it would appear to be the case that this publication route is no longer open to me via the individual who requested I write the peice.

I have written previously on the temptation of ardent proponents on one view or another to withdraw from debate on the basis of "indignation" and "principles" Yet as ever in doing so we damage the process of debate and discussion itself.

So here's a thought:

“Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.” 

― John Milton, Areopagitica

Edit. 4/4/2017.

Since writing the above, and posting this yesterday the individual concerned suggested that I have misrepresented the views of "the queerness" Fair comment. After all there is a team behind that particular publication. So perhaps on balance that was overstating the case here. It's not "the queerness" as a publication that is at fault. Merely one of its curators for putting personal opinion before open debate. A fact made abundantly clear by the fact that their Facebook page and twitter accounts were blocked to me long before this could be discussed via more appropriate means.

All this stemmed from a Facebook discussion of a recent India Willougby piece ... Sadly the  thread has  now been deleted .

By all means read the queerness, its usually rather informative and thought provoking. I mentioned the entire publication in an effort to keep this on an impersonal basis. Maybe that was somewhat naive, so, with no other recourse I must single out the individual responsible for condemnation. Gatekeeping of articles on the grounds of personal opinion and miss representation of the content therein is poor form. It was suggested that the article below, and by extension me,  are things the individual had no time for, since it was merely rehashing of the old women are men debate. Read it. I'll let you all decide.

So, here's the "dangerous" article make of it what you will and by all means, let me know.
__________________________________

Brexit, leavers, remainers, Britain, The EU, Gender, man, woman, sex, black, white, hispanic, Republican, Democrat, rich or poor.

I'm sure on reading the above various people will have rolled their eyes at least once and thought:

"Oh lord, not again!"

Humanity loves it's categories. Science thrives on them, learning, discovering and clarifiying collective wisdom on the basis of experiments, proofs and the categorising of it's results. Sadly there are also those who would use categories as a means for social and economic division.

Thinking and explaining outcomes by use of a system of categories is a useful tool, just think of the elements and periodic table for example, or behavioural studies of chimpanzee's. Even consumer product marketing surveys. However categorical thinking is also occasionally problematic. One should bear in mind that the existence or evidence of a phenomenon isn't dependent upon the category into which it is placed. Rather the category exists as result of the observation and existence of what has been observed and thus is a measure of our collective understanding it at any given time.

Medicines and the categorising of drugs is a perfect example, by being a reflection on their observed effects on the body, and the changes and alterations to the categories over time reflecting how our knowledge may change.

When it comes to legality and politics, it would seem that categories take on an importance far  outweighing their actual purpose. With inclusion into one or other category inferring a legitimacy and implied view of the world that may or may not be the case. As an example just look at the  Republican verses Democrat categorisation in the US currently. Many people assume all republicans have a universal view of things like race, religion, and certain civil freedoms, yet this is not always so. With regard to legal protection, being defined as "included" in one or more categories often confers certain rights and/or protections on people. The important point here is this:

Humans are always individuals. That fact cannot be altered as a result of changes to categories, their borders or definitions, since those borders are arbitrary thus we remain unchanged by them. 

However the same cannot be said of the effects on humans. Imposed inclusion or exclusion to and from a category, and the resultant change in other's perceptions of us is very real. While we are not directly changed, the interaction with the world can - and often does change  - dramatically. (Just look at a typical work promotion or lottery winner scenario, or lets say a trans person coming out and losing their well paid job)

This months topic at queerness is "Gender". One of these categories, & one that has seen much debate in recent months. Various positions and definitions exist, both of what "gender is" and what we should do about it. If you like, this is the debate on how the human race should subcategorise itself, and who should be allowed to occupy which bits of the subcategories be they man, woman, NB, agender etc.

There are many in the trans population who (for very justifiable reasons) at the mention of these arguments will do what I predicted above. A tired weary roll of the eyes and the thought "not again". Some do not wish to discuss the matter, fed up of hearing over and over the counter arguments to their existence and validity.

It's hard to argue incessantly in the face of constant recrimination and dissent. It's hard, after rolling ones eyes and mentally ticking the list of things we've heard time and time again, to pick up a pen or a keyboard or a leaflet or a protest sign and rebut these arguments again and again and again. And. Again.

However I would argue that we must.

We must continue to engage the likes of Murray, Greer, or other elements of the not so complimentary press, and to continuously, ceaselessly state the case of a more appropriate categorical system that takes into account new levels of knowledge and understanding since the original "gender" term and its subdivided boxes were first labeled. No matter how boring, dull and repetitive or reductive this seems there must always be a ready answer to those who would use categorical thinking, or even its abolition,  as basis for an exclusionary policy.

So what does that mean for those who stand outside these old original boxes, or have the legitimacy of their being in them questioned?

It mean's giving consideration to definitional and causality arguments. It means citing historically and culturally different views of gender, as examples of humanities variety and wisdom. It means acknowledging and debating the legal disparity between current legislation for "Sex"and "Gender" (Legal definitions that were obviously built on the old category system, thus may require revision)

It means that rather than discounting every single point that our opponents foist upon us whilst yelling "bigot" and "transphobe", because we assume everyone knows them to be false, poorly constructed arguments, we must subject each to critical examination and structured philosophical, scientific rebuttal, to once again prove our point. We simply cannot afford to close down the discussion by means of an outstretched palm and "no we aint going there" responses. Not any more.

It's dull, it's repetitive and in some cases can lead those who engage opponents in the gender debate to being somewhat ostracised by other, more entrenched sections of their own "category" Since by giving ground they lay themselves open to accusations of exclusionary views themselves. (guilt by association if you will)

But consider the alternative.

To disengage from the unpalatable discourse, and to assume the debate is over because "everyone knows better now" is to invite those opposing views which we give so little credence to have an unchallenged voice with free reign to an audience that still doesn't know.

The Greer's and Murray of this world are not speaking to us, They are aiming at an entirely different audience. The ones who don't know. If we don't reply in kind, those words go unchallenged. The social standing of our critics confers implied legitimacy on their words allowing the myths and exclusionary rhetoric being pedalled as informed opinion to gain an authoritative credence it frankly doesn't deserve.

Theres a good reason Modern day philosophers still study and apply the 3000 yr old writings of Socrates, Plato, (Circa 399 BC) and Epicurus (307BC). Various models of ethics and 19th century examples of thinkers such as Decarte, Kant, Rousseau and a host of others. How humans think about, and therefore categorise, themselves has been the subject of debate for at least that long.

It would seem then, that assuming "the debate(s) regarding gender(s) are over" is perhaps a tad arrogant?

With respect to gender itself. Whilst questions of causality and scientific discovery are important, they themselves will not tell us what to do. Scientific arguments may clarify where we place our category boundaries as descriptors, assisting a legal argument. However the ethical debate still continues, since the scientific & legal arguments cannot solve the ethical ones. All are equally important however, if one views knowledge, learning and parity for all as being the ultimate goal, rather than "being proven right"

That our species still have problems with this concept is a sad reflection on the Human Condition. Being born black, white, gay, straight, trans, cis, rich, poor, or whatever political persuasion you ultimately gravitate towards. These are not problems. It's our collective attitude towards the meaning and validity of each catagory that are problems.

Dont believe me? Just look at America. After 8 years of a progressive president who happened to be Black, people had stopped believing that old outdated rhetoric had any power. They stopped engaging. Result? A white supremacist in the oval office. Brexit? Need I say more?

So, whatever the category, whatever the conversation, we must always engage the debate, because ones thing is for sure. Your opponents definitely will.


Sarah.

Feeling a little odd...

Hi all you lovely people.

I had planned to add to the mini series on the basic's of philosophy this afternoon. But tbh my mind is wandering off down tracks a little less structured, so I decided to let it do so and just figure things out as I went, leaving the more academic stuff for another time.

I was out and about at a local college today, finishing up on small program designed and operated  jointly by the DWP and the college. Its one of those  "Back to work things"

I dont mean to be brash when I say that academically its of no use to me, since its far below the level at which I'm already qualified. However it was of benefit in other more subtle ways.

Meeting people, and just being out and about is very much under rated. Sure we all love to chill out at home, but after seven dark winter months of partially forced and partially welcomed hibernation It's obvious that this grizzly need to get out more.

Why have I written so much in recent months? Well because the end of  my college courses coincided with the end of my job and the end of the summer so, thankfully I hooked into something that took my interest and it's kept me sane.

Years ago, when i was first seeking jobs and stimulation from the world at large the last thing I wanted was a steady 9-5. I wanted challenge, adventure, interest, excitement and to use a technical term, to "find out about new shit" that I didn't yet know. So after wandering around fora few years I signed up in the uniform of UK plc and went off to play in the big wide world.

What I didn't know of course is that the "big wide world " largely fails to examine that which it doesn't know outside of  the abstract or academic. That, and others acceptance of the questioning of same whilst wearing said uniform depended greatly on the level of badge one held.

Now in my early 40's I would be quite content with a 9-5 sort of role. Although going to the same place each day would be fine i think i'd still struggle doing the same thing. Repetition without challenge or growth is simply dull. and this is where my blogs have been a bit of a cathartic life line.

I may be severely limited by lack of resource, resulting in a  very humdrum existence and largely empty routine, but "the mind" is a great thing. It needs little to produce much. Thought can allow us to escape any physical prison you care to mention. A fact that was brought home to me the other night during a rare occasion where I found something of interest to watch on Einstein's favourite time waster.

"Amazing spaces" hosted by George Clarke were building a caravan. Not just any caravan, but one designed and planned in meticulous detail by a former POW who had, for nearly 4 years, suffered horrendous treatment at the hands of the Japanese.

Sadly the designer, "Reg" died having never seen it built, but his daughter - herself now a pensioner -  had found the notebook containing the planning that had kept her father sane during this period. I also learnt of the underground university. Where the men would pretend to play cards whilst sharing knowledge of all sorts of subjects.

My time in the medical world allowed me to bear witness to the incredible feats of human resilience. Mental willpower. How one meets problems has a direct bearing on the effect those problems have on us.

My life is not even in the same ball bark as someone with a terminal illness, or suffering extreme deprivation like that seen by POW's in the eastern conflicts, but it occurred to me the approach to the challenges brought in each case have been similar.

I sure you've all heard it before:

"It's not the problem thats the problem, it's your attitude to the problem that is the problem. "

Reg's drawings:

 And the finished article:

So:

When life is a bit odd, and you feel a little weird, things aint going like they should and you're left wondering what path to tread,

Consider Reg's attitude to the problem, and ask yourself, "is the answer already in my head?"

'Cos which ever way you cut it, In Reg's case and those like him, that was a bloody great attitude.

Till next time,

Sarah