On National Pride and Shame

[seer]

Why someone comes to a moral conclusion is indeed important - but not the subject of this thread. If you want to discuss it - start a thread.

And I heard your answer. You've seen my response and why I think you are being inconsistent. At this point, I think we have to leave it at that.

Not the least bit inconsistent..

[carpedm9587]

You brought up earlier that other arbitrary groupings (political ideology, gender/sex, ethnicity, race, etc) have no need to feel shame for bad actions that arbitrary grouping caused because it can be rationalized as "Other people's actions". I see no reason why the arbitrary grouping of "Citizenship" should be treated any different. It was other people's actions.

That's not exactly what I said. Let me try again.

You can take any of my attributes and identify ones I share with others: atheism, the color of my hair, my race, etc. I belong to those groups by virtue of having that attribute, nothing more. The group is not a cohesive group with an ongoing, collective identity and membership. There is no formal organization I am choosing to belong to. Ergo, I have no sense of "group shame" associated with the actions of the members of that group. Every atheist in the world could be a butthead and it would essentially not have anything to do with me, except that I would have to deal with everyone pretty much expecting that I am a butthead because I am an atheist.

But a nation, a company, or a religious group is a cohesive group with a defined membership. It has a period of existence. More importantly, I choose to be a member of that group. Does such a group have any responsibility for its collective action? Do we hold a company responsible if it pollutes, puts out a harmful products, or misreports its finances? Do we hold a nation responsible if it invades another nation without cause, engages in the genocide of some of its population, or pollutes the waterways also used by its neighbors? Do we hold a religion accountable if they wage war on a different religious group, or decimate a population that does not follow its teachings? Of course we do. That "group" has an identity - even a legal identity - and we treat it as an "individual" with a responsibility to engage with others in a just and equitable manner.

That means, as a member of that group, I share in that responsibility. I am proud of what that group does when it does good. I am ashamed of that when it does ill. It is not personal shame/pride if I had nothing to do with the act in question; it is a sense of group shame/pride. If the sense of pride is strong, it affirms my decision to be part of the group. If the sense of shame is strong enough, it might drive me to abandon my membership in the group. And, just as I experience personal shame for my past bad-actions, I experience group shame for the past bad-actions of my chosen group. Just as I experience personal pride for my past good-actions, I experience group pride for the past good-actions of my group.

BTW - as an aside - this is why I find references to "the left" and "the right" to be fairly absurd. If you think the Democratic party is making bad decisions, you are identifying a cohesive group with a defined membership. But there is no "the left" or "the right" or "liberals" or "conservatives" group that acts as a group. So statements like "The left is ruining this country" or "The right is trying to control women's bodies" are absurd, IMO. They are just examples of the ways we try to "other" people, and identify them as "not part of my group." Yet the habit is deeply engrained. I find myself slipping as I work to eliminate that kind of language from my writng and speaking.

[CivilDiscourse]

I was answering his questions:



To me, the why we think it is immoral is paramount. In any case, no, I am not ashamed as I mentioned already.

Only to a point.

If you are in City A and want to discuss the best way to get to City B then you can have a discussion with everyone in City A. It does not matter what their original location was. They could have come from city X, Y, Z, they may have drove in, flown in, boated in, etc. How they got to A, where they came from, does not prevent the discussion on how to get from A to B.

The same applies to the discussion that Carpe is trying to have.

[Sparko]

No. That's not what he's arguing.

He's saying that if you and he see eye to eye about the morality of slavery, then there is room to discuss the question of shame. However, if you and he do not see eye to eye on the morality of slavery, then discussing the question of shame won't get you anywhere.

There doesn't need to be an objective morality involved in first settling on whether there is an agreement on the morality.


To go on an analogous type of situation, take this example.

You can discuss what types of cuts the US needs to make in it's budget only if you and the person you are talking with can agree that cuts need to be made in the first place. That first is a foundational agreement that needs to be made, else the discussion about WHAT TO CUT will end up devolving into an entirely different discussion.

But if morality is not objective, then what does it matter what I or he thinks about slavery? Obviously slave owners back then found nothing morally wrong with slavery, so if morals are subjective, who am I to say what they did was wrong? Why should I feel ashamed for something they did?

[Sparko]

No - I am not. And I am STILL not going to get baited into a meta-ethical discussion. If you want to go there, start a different thread.

The issue is a simple one.

Do we all agree that slavery is a moral ill? Do we all agree that the treatment of the Native Americans (e.g., kill the indian, save the man, Trail of Tears, etc.) were moral ills. Do we all agree that America has done things we consider bad/wrong in the course of its almost 250-year history?

That IS arguing for an objective moral standard. How else could "we all" agree on something like that? And if morality is not objective, then it doesn't matter how many agree on anything. The countries who allowed slavery throughout time never considered it a moral ill, did they? Why does our current moral idea that slavery is bad override their moral sense that it was perfectly fine? If how many people "agree" on a moral ill makes it so, then if most of the world in the past did not think slavery was immoral, then it wasn't, if morals are subjective. Nothing to be ashamed of.

[CivilDiscourse]

But if morality is not objective, then what does it matter what I or he thinks about slavery? Obviously slave owners back then found nothing morally wrong with slavery, so if morals are subjective, who am I to say what they did was wrong? Why should I feel ashamed for something they did?

Again, though. If you two agree on "I think X is bad" then you can discuss what to do about it. Why you may think X is bad doesn't prevent you from having meaningful discussions on how to move forward. There's nothing stopping you and he from moving forward from a point of agreement and having a meaningful discussion.

In other words, move forward from point of agreement instead of try and dwell on points of disagreement distract from that discussion.

[seer]

The same applies to the discussion that Carpe is trying to have.

Trying to have? I think everyone shared their opinion already.

[carpedm9587]

But if morality is not objective, then what does it matter what I or he thinks about slavery? Obviously slave owners back then found nothing morally wrong with slavery, so if morals are subjective, who am I to say what they did was wrong? Why should I feel ashamed for something they did?

You're missing the point.

Metaethics: the discussion about how we arrive at moral conclusions
National Shame/Pride: the discussion about whether or not, assuming agreement on a particular moral issue, it is appropriate to feel national pride/shame.

We don't have to settle the metaethic issue to have the National Pride/Shame discussion. All we have to do is agree "X is immoral." Why we agree is not important. It is, actually, a separate discussion.

Look, lets take it down to basic math. In algebra, I can be given the equation X + Y = 10. If we all agree that X = 4, then we can figure out what Y is. We don't have to discuss WHY X = 4 to calculate Y. If we all agree X = 4, the math is easy. If we disagree on the value of X, then it's silly to try to solve the problem together because we aren't starting from the same place.

So, likewise, we can have a discussion about the statement, "we ought to feel national shame for actions we consider immoral that are perpetrated by our nation." We don't have to identify particular actions or agree on how we arrive at "moral/immoral" distinctions to discuss the statement above.

See it now?

[carpedm9587]

Trying to have? I think everyone shared their opinion already.

Except that Carpe pointed out two problems with those answers: 1) conflating personal and national pride/shame and 2) the inconsistency of expressing national pride for historic national actions one had nothing to do with while eschewing nation shame on the basis that "I had noting to do with it."

AFAIK, neither has been responded to. Instead we have been on a multipage effort to sidetrack the discussion to metaethics.

[Mountain Man]

Again, though. If you two agree on "I think X is bad" then you can discuss what to do about it. Why you may think X is bad doesn't prevent you from having meaningful discussions on how to move forward. There's nothing stopping you and he from moving forward from a point of agreement and having a meaningful discussion.

In other words, move forward from point of agreement instead of try and dwell on points of disagreement distract from that discussion.

I would think that being able to justify why you think something is morally wrong is necessary before you can start discussing solutions.

[Mountain Man]

You're missing the point.

Metaethics: the discussion about how we arrive at moral conclusions
National Shame/Pride: the discussion about whether or not, assuming agreement on a particular moral issue, it is appropriate to feel national pride/shame.

We don't have to settle the metaethic issue to have the National Pride/Shame discussion. All we have to do is agree "X is immoral." Why we agree is not important. It is, actually, a separate discussion.

Look, lets take it down to basic math. In algebra, I can be given the equation X + Y = 10. If we all agree that X = 4, then we can figure out what Y is. We don't have to discuss WHY X = 4 to calculate Y. If we all agree X = 4, the math is easy. If we disagree on the value of X, then it's silly to try to solve the problem together because we aren't starting from the same place.

So, likewise, we can have a discussion about the statement, "we ought to feel national shame for actions we consider immoral that are perpetrated by our nation." We don't have to identify particular actions or agree on how we arrive at "moral/immoral" distinctions to discuss the statement above.

See it now?

Okay, so why ought we feel shame about the actions of others? You still haven't answered that question.

(As an aside, the concept of "ought" is grounded in objective morality, so it's curious you would choose that word. To be consistent with subjective morality, you should phrase it as, "It's my opinion that we should feel national shame for actions we consider immoral that are perpetrated by our nation." Of course then a valid response is, "It's my opinion that we shouldn't," and the discussion has nowhere else to go. You can only get the ball rolling here by appealing to some absolute standard that contradicts your worldview.)

[EvoUK]

Except that Carpe pointed out two problems with those answers: 1) conflating personal and national pride/shame and 2) the inconsistency of expressing national pride for historic national actions one had nothing to do with while eschewing nation shame on the basis that "I had noting to do with it."

AFAIK, neither has been responded to. Instead we have been on a multipage effort to sidetrack the discussion to metaethics.

It seems they know it's inconsistent, so wish to derail into a discussion on ethics rather than try to defend their inconsistency.

That way they can go on the offensive and repeat the assertion that unless morality is 'objective' you can't say if anything is immoral. It's much easier than having to defend their own stance.

I've noted before that they're far more comfortable turning around discussions where they can demand answers rather than defend their own thinking, especially seer.



I'm pretty sure this is nail on head territory, but to show me wrong it should be trivially easy for them to explain your two points above.

[carpedm9587]

I would think that being able to justify why you think something is morally wrong is necessary before you can start discussing solutions.

See the responses from both CD and I. It is not "necessary" in order to have the discussion. You may want to know that, but the discussion doesn't require it. The question: "If an action is seen as morally wrong, is it appropriate to feel shame" can be answered without knowing HOW one arrives at the moral judgment. Likewise, the question, "If it is raining, should one bring an umbrella" can be answered without knowing what causes rain or even if it is actually raining right this moment.

[seer]

Except that Carpe pointed out two problems with those answers: 1) conflating personal and national pride/shame and 2) the inconsistency of expressing national pride for historic national actions one had nothing to do with while eschewing nation shame on the basis that "I had noting to do with it."

AFAIK, neither has been responded to. Instead we have been on a multipage effort to sidetrack the discussion to metaethics.

I responded. I can love this country and be thankful that I was born here without feeling shame for what (some) others in the past did. Look at slavery. Many Founders were against slavery, the vast vast majority of Americans in our history never owned a slave. And we fought a brutal war to end slavery. What exactly should I feel shame about? Because even if you are speaking of national shame it still comes down to me, personally, feeling that shame.

[carpedm9587]

Okay, so why ought we feel shame about the actions of others? You still haven't answered that question.

You are, again, conflating personal shame with national/group shame. I have said several times that these are distinct concepts. I NEVER feel personal shame about the actions of other people. I consider that ridiculous. But when I am a voluntary member of a group, I can and do experience both pride and shame about the actions of my chosen group. I have chosen to affiliate with that group, so its choices affect me and reflect on me. I want the groups I affiliate with to do things I assess as good - not things I assess as bad. If my shame in a group becomes strong enough, I will likely elect to leave the group. I can also be ashamed of my group's choices (e.g., engaging in slavery and Jim Crow) and proud of the steps taken to repair the harm (e.g., Civil rights legislation, etc.). I would consider it inconsistent to feel group pride but eschew group shame.

(As an aside, the concept of "ought" is grounded in objective morality, so it's curious you would choose that word. To be consistent with subjective morality, you should phrase it as, "It's my opinion that we should feel national shame for actions we consider immoral that are perpetrated by our nation." Of course then a valid response is, "It's my opinion that we shouldn't," and the discussion has nowhere else to go. You can only get the ball rolling here by appealing to some absolute standard that contradicts your worldview.)

Again, I am not going to be baited into a metaethics discussion. If you want to have that discussion, start a thread.

If you would like to substitute, "is it reasonable to" for "should you," that would be a reasonable substitution.