If I decided to be consistent about my (forming) beliefs about the mis-use of animals, then I must change my habits immediately, if not 5 minutes ago. For example, my shoes are made of leather, and so, to be consisten, I must get rid of them and never ever again wear leather shoes, or anything made from animal products.
However... I was raised in "the depression" mentality -- or, in other words, I'm a pack rat. To throw these shoes away is to be wasteful because they are still relatively intact, and are probably good for another season. Besides that, I did not buy these leather shoes, but snagged them before they were trashed. I did not give my dollar-vote to Nike (nor would I EVER), or any middle people involved. I am not financially contributing to the problem.
But, my wearing leather shoes is a tacit admittance to the evils of society. And financial contribution is only half the problem, maybe even less when considered socially. Appearances determine virtue in our current society. I never understood nor agreed with that philosophy, until just this moment. If I am to *appear* virtuous, that means my appearance MUST match my principles. If I am for animal rights and humanity's obligation, then I cannot appear to hold any view that might be perceived as contrary. Therefore, if I'm wearing leather shoes but actively working towards animal rights, _by appearances_, _by social perception_, I am not embodying that which I am preaching.
Of course, Virtue is not an appearance thing -- my clothes do not determine my worth. However, my composure and actions and reactions DO determine my moral worth, and these are included in my overall appearance. (Methinks the problem lies in an ambiguity of the word 'appearance'... if not by dictionary definition, then by social definition/connotation.)
If Virtue is determined by society, then I cannot save my shoes, or my leather (for making bags and such), or anything that might be against my stated principles. And yet, if society deems my action (X) wrong, but it _is_ morally correct, am I culpable? (Are societal consequences factored in to "Don't confuse the consequences of doing a right action with the right action"? Or is societal might right?)
If Virtue is determined by myself, then I can save my shoes and everything, and not be entirely ethically/morally inconsistent. But, how can an act be truly Good if I myself, and alone, determine it as such?
If Virtue is determined by both others and myself... where's the middle ground?
(more thinking, a few hours later)
What to do if the society in which one dwells speaks the word 'Virtue', but does unvirtuous actions? (Say one thing, do another) Would individual virtue be recognized for what it is?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Individuals don't determine but simply embody, reflect, or accept virtue, the latter being entirely a social, not majoritarian, product.
If animals are not simply products, then leather is wrong, regardless of others' perceptions.
Some of us, perhaps as a measure of our psychological weakness, can sustain a bit of hypocrisy and still sleep well; the larger goal is to reduce the level of inconsistency in our judgments/actions.
you write: Individuals don't determine but simply embody, reflect, or accept virtue, the latter being entirely a social, not majoritarian, product.
My intuition is disagreeing (which might be residual individualistic-ness...)
Isn't it fair to say that in order to embody and reflect virtue, I must determine how my actions embody and reflect that virtue?
Am *I* not the one in charge of my actions? in charge of deciding how to act/re-act? It's my choice of how, or to, engage in the dance of interaction with society, no?
Fine if society has the final say-so (which, frankly, worries me in the curren climate...). It makes sense that a collective of individuals would have more say than just one.
But I cannot allow society to have *all* the say-so... otherwise, I see no point to all of my individual torment over determining the virtuousness of my actions. Society is made up of individuals, so individual determination *must* be a part of the overall determination...
You write: If animals are not simply products, then leather is wrong, regardless of others' perceptions.
So a group of people decide that animals are not products. If society does not recognize those people's choice as being virtuous, or at the very least having merit, then what difference does it make if animal farming is, or is not, morally wrong?
Wasn't it those individual people who decided that this action was morally correct, thus virtuous?
(Such a fine line between social and majoritarian... I'm almost afraid to ask what the difference is.)
You write: Some of us, perhaps as a measure of our psychological weakness, can sustain a bit of hypocrisy and still sleep well; the larger goal is to reduce the level of inconsistency in our judgments/actions.
For some, it might be weakness. For others, I think it strength. Methinks it's a matter of awareness... If I do not know that action X is hypocritical, then it's more difficult to lose sleep. If I do know, then it becomes a matter of self-discipline -- to know that something is inconsistent, while knowing that change will come, but not today. See... this aspect is determined by the individual. ;-)
[Correction for last paragraph]
"If I do not know that action X is hypocritical, then it's [easier to sleep]."
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that individuals qua social beings determine virtue, rather than, as before, that virtue is entirely a social product. What I hope to reject is simply the Robinsonade (Marx's term from Defoe's story) of rugged (that is, unmediated) individualism.
I see, so individuals with a 'social/societal mindset'...? The idea being that in the act of determining, the individual not only considers their own opinion/welfare on the action, but also considers the opinions/welfare of society at the same time.
See, my fear is that if society is left to determine virtue... well, in the current climate, I don't think people know *how* to determine virtue, even if it outright bit them! Their actions do not bely a contientious knowledge of right and wrong overall, just short-term right and wrong for themselves. Values have shifted to material possessions -- that is what is considered virtuous!!! No, it's not correct. But it is what the majority actively embrace. (I leave hopeful room for intentions and all that is unseen about people. I hope that they really do mean well, and are working towards some semblance of a better tomorrow. And I know change takes time... and that I'm a product of the 'instant gratification' era. I know all that. But when you look at random people's little actions and reactions... there's little to no virtue to be found. My mindset is different than theirs, we're speaking different languages... and I'm demanding a discussion with them.)
You write: "The idea being that in the act of determining, the individual not only considers their own opinion/welfare on the action, but also considers the opinions/welfare of society at the same time."
I'm thinking more ruggedly and primordially social: that who we are as individuals and what we think, do, and say -- whether about ourselves or others -- is in great measure a social product. Again, the majoritarian view of this or that issue is a separate concern from the basic social determination of our natures.
....who I am as an individual is in great measure a social product...?
(my brain hurts trying to wrap itself around that concept...)
Is this to say that if society had not created philosophy, or endorsed and maintained its existence, I wouldn't be thinking philosophically?
....where's the line? Society creates, society determines. So because society created me, society gets to determine my virtue. Sounds rather pre-determined -- I didn't create me, society did. So whatever I do, it's society's fault or triumph -- none of my own.
That seems wrong. So maybe I'm misundertanding something?
You write: "Again, the majoritarian view of this or that issue is a separate concern from the basic social determination of our natures."
...but it's the majoritarian thing that is getting us into trouble... AND is an inherent feature of this thing called Society. I do not think that the issues can be so easily separated...
You're right to suggest that these issues are difficult (and I think form the heart of all social/political theory). Notice that we have come full circle (as far as the seminar is concerned): the questions you raise here are precisely those that we first considered when taking up Marx's Theses on Feuerbach. Go back and take a look.
top [url=http://www.001casino.com/]casino games[/url] hinder the latest [url=http://www.realcazinoz.com/]casino online[/url] manumitted no set aside reward at the leading [url=http://www.baywatchcasino.com/]baywatch casino
[/url].
Post a Comment