On National Pride and Shame

[carpedm9587]

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.

While I understand this sentiment, I'm hesitant to assume I know the motivations of others. I try to limit myself to pointing out the trend in the discussion and give the other the benefit of the doubt as much as possible. I'm not perfect at it - but I'm getting there!

[CivilDiscourse]

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

Why? If you think we are spending too much on Defense, and I think we are spending too much on defense, we can have a discussion on what parts of defense need to be cut. If you think it's because there's wasteful spending, and I think it's because the military industrial complex is killing people to make a profit and the military is evil and helping them, we can still work together to figure out what to cut and how deep. It might get difficult, but there's room to find compromise and agreement. That underlying disagreement on why MIGHT cause issues in discussion, but we at least both recognize cuts should be made, and should be able to find some common ground in what to cut.

If you think we are spending too much on defense, and I think that we aren't spending enough. Then we aren't even in a good enough spot to discuss cuts because neither one of us has a fundamental agreement in the goal (cut vs raise).

In the first scenario, even if there is fundamental disagreement in reasons, there is an agreement in the fundamental spot needed to move forward. In the second, that lack of agreement in the basic goal prevents discussion from even happening.

[Sparko]

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.

Again, he is appealing to "we all agree" - meaning he is appealing to either ad populum or an objective moral standard that we should all recognize. If morals ARE objective and slavery is objectively bad, then he has a point that maybe we should feel some guilt over what our forefathers did. But if morals are just subjective then what our ancestors did and believed is just as valid as our morals today. If they believed that slavery was OK and morals are not objective then there was nothing morally wrong with what they did, even if we don't like it today. Nothing for us to feel ashamed over. It was just a different time with different values.

[Mountain Man]

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.

That's a rather curious analogy, since whether or not it is raining is objective. Nobody would ever say, "It's my opinion that it's raining today." The statement "It is raining" is either objectively true, or objectively false.

So once again, we see you borrowing from objective morality in order to give some juice to your arguments.

[Sparko]

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?

See my answer to CD above.

[Mountain Man]

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.



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.

You try and draw a distinction between "group shame" and "personal shame", but I'm curious, how does group shame manifest itself in an individual except through feelings of personal shame? You even say, "If my shame in a group becomes strong enough, I will likely elect to leave the group," which seems to contradict your insistence that group shame and personal shame are somehow mutually exclusive.

[CivilDiscourse]

Again, he is appealing to "we all agree" - meaning he is appealing to either ad populum or an objective moral standard that we should all recognize. If morals ARE objective and slavery is objectively bad, then he has a point that maybe we should feel some guilt over what our forefathers did. But if morals are just subjective then what our ancestors did and believed is just as valid as our morals today. If they believed that slavery was OK and morals are not objective then there was nothing morally wrong with what they did, even if we don't like it today. Nothing for us to feel ashamed over. It was just a different time with different values.

He is doing neither. I'll go back to the military budget question.

"If we all agree that defense spending needs to be cut, we can discuss what needs to be cut in the DOD's budget".

That statement is structurally equivalent to:
"If we all agree that slavery is wrong, then we can discuss whether it is appropriate to feel national shame".

The first does not mean that there is an "objective" amount of defense spending is too high. It is a subjective measure. It just means that the group of people in the discussion should at least agree that it needs to be cut before it is meaningful to talk about where to cut. Otherwise, you might as well continue arguing about whether there needs to be cuts at all....talking about where is pointless. It's a "cart before the horse" situation.

The second follows that same logic. Appeal to populism or an objective morality is no more required here than an objective defense cap or appeal to populism is needed to start discussing DOD budget cuts.

[carpedm9587]

He is doing neither. I'll go back to the military budget question.

"If we all agree that defense spending needs to be cut, we can discuss what needs to be cut in the DOD's budget".

That statement is structurally equivalent to:
"If we all agree that slavery is wrong, then we can discuss whether it is appropriate to feel national shame".

The first does not mean that there is an "objective" amount of defense spending is too high. It is a subjective measure. It just means that the group of people in the discussion should at least agree that it needs to be cut before it is meaningful to talk about where to cut. Otherwise, you might as well continue arguing about whether there needs to be cuts at all....talking about where is pointless. It's a "cart before the horse" situation.

The second follows that same logic. Appeal to populism or an objective morality is no more required here than an objective defense cap or appeal to populism is needed to start discussing DOD budget cuts.

I'll add that they also don't need to agree on WHY the budget needs to be cut. They just need to agree that they want to cut the budget before a discussion about "what to cut" is reasonable.

[carpedm9587]

Again, he is appealing to "we all agree" - meaning he is appealing to either ad populum or an objective moral standard that we should all recognize. If morals ARE objective and slavery is objectively bad, then he has a point that maybe we should feel some guilt over what our forefathers did. But if morals are just subjective then what our ancestors did and believed is just as valid as our morals today. If they believed that slavery was OK and morals are not objective then there was nothing morally wrong with what they did, even if we don't like it today. Nothing for us to feel ashamed over. It was just a different time with different values.

No - he's not. He's saying, "if we all agree," not "we all have to agree."

I have said several times - if we do not agree that X (in this case slavery) is a moral ill, than the rest of the discussion is moot and this thread should end.

If we DO all agree, then we can proceed to a discussion about the experience of shame and pride. WHY we agree is irrelevant to that discussion.

Which is why I asked, "do you believe this country has done bad things?" I do. If you also do, then we can continue a discussion about the experience of shame.

[EvoUK]

If morals ARE objective and slavery is objectively bad, then he has a point that maybe we should feel some guilt over what our forefathers did.

Ok, well YOU think morals are objective, so within your own objective moral framework, was slavery objectively bad?

If so, do you think we should feel national shame over your countries last wrong doings? If not, then you're at the impasse that Carpe mentioned and there's little point in discussing further. Though obviously if you don't think the slavery as practiced by America back then was bad I'd be fascinated to know why.

[carpedm9587]

That's a rather curious analogy, since whether or not it is raining is objective. Nobody would ever say, "It's my opinion that it's raining today." The statement "It is raining" is either objectively true, or objectively false.

So once again, we see you borrowing from objective morality in order to give some juice to your arguments.

OK, let me try a slightly different analogy. Consider the statement, "if you like bananas (like me), putting bananas on a pizza is delicious." If you don't like bananas, discussing the deliciousness of bananas on pizzas is pointless. You already don't like bananas. If you like them, then having the discussion about bananas on pizzas is a reasonable discussion. I don't have to know WHY you like bananas, or even what it is about them that you like. The IF condition has been met: you like bananas, so discussing the THEN is reasonable.

Likewise, "If you think our nation has done bad things, feeling shame about those bad things is a reasonable response," is only dependent on you agreeing that our nation has done bad things. It doesn't require an understanding of how you arrived at that position, what things are bad or good, or anything else. If you don't think our nation has done bad things, the rest of the discussion is moot.

[Sparko]

He is doing neither. I'll go back to the military budget question.

"If we all agree that defense spending needs to be cut, we can discuss what needs to be cut in the DOD's budget".

That statement is structurally equivalent to:
"If we all agree that slavery is wrong, then we can discuss whether it is appropriate to feel national shame".

The first does not mean that there is an "objective" amount of defense spending is too high. It is a subjective measure. It just means that the group of people in the discussion should at least agree that it needs to be cut before it is meaningful to talk about where to cut. Otherwise, you might as well continue arguing about whether there needs to be cuts at all....talking about where is pointless. It's a "cart before the horse" situation.

The second follows that same logic. Appeal to populism or an objective morality is no more required here than an objective defense cap or appeal to populism is needed to start discussing DOD budget cuts.

A military budget has no moral component. Why would you feel shame over a military budget? You could add a moral componenet if you wanted, but then it would be subject to the same objective moral question I asked earlier. If you say "It was morally wrong for the USA to spend money developing the Atom Bomb during WW2 and we should feel shame for it" then I would be asking the same questions.

1. Are morals objective? If so, then if spending money on the bomb is objectively immoral then we can agree on that and might feel shame for spending money on it. Or not.
2. Are morals subjective? If so, then what we think today about spending money on the bomb has no bearing on what they thought about it back in WW2. Even if we think it is immoral now, they did not back then, and if morals are subjective then neither of us has any claim to which standard is "real" - so why would I have any shame over it?

[Sparko]

Ok, well YOU think morals are objective, so within your own objective moral framework, was slavery objectively bad?

If so, do you think we should feel national shame over your countries last wrong doings? If not, then you're at the impasse that Carpe mentioned and there's little point in discussing further. Though obviously if you don't think the slavery as practiced by America back then was bad I'd be fascinated to know why.

I guess it would depend on which side you associate with. While certain parts of our country allowed slavery, other parts of our country were against it and even went to war to end it. If we identify with the Union against the Confederates, then why shouldn't we feel pride in our defeat of slavery instead?

[carpedm9587]

You try and draw a distinction between "group shame" and "personal shame", but I'm curious, how does group shame manifest itself in an individual except through feelings of personal shame? You even say, "If my shame in a group becomes strong enough, I will likely elect to leave the group," which seems to contradict your insistence that group shame and personal shame are somehow mutually exclusive.

The distinction is the object of the shame. At no point, in wandering around Fort Pickens, did I experience a sense of "oh my - I did a bad thing." I didn't do ANY of those things. What I experienced was a sense of "Oh my, a group I have decided to be part of did a bad thing. I am ashamed for that choice by that group at that time, and I feel a desire to see if those bad things have a ripple effect into the present that needs to be addressed." By choosing to be a member of the group, I gain the rights of the group, and the responsibilities as well. If this group did a bad thing that impacted people, my membership gives me an obligation to right any wrongs that can still be righted, to make the entire group the best it can be in the present.

There is no personal guilt here.

Put it this way: if you went to your church picnic and found that everyone there was throwing their trash all over the ground and in the water, would you not want to call that group to be better about their trash? Or would you simply say, "I'm not tossing trash, that's good enough for me!" And if you discovered that the church had a picnic last week, which you didn't even attend, and completely trashed the venue, would you not feel a sense of shame that this group you love and are affiliated with acted this way? Would you not want to gather people together and go get that venue cleaned up, and challenge the group to not do this again, even though you had nothing to do with the littering?

[carpedm9587]

A military budget has no moral component. Why would you feel shame over a military budget? You could add a moral componenet if you wanted, but then it would be subject to the same objective moral question I asked earlier. If you say "It was morally wrong for the USA to spend money developing the Atom Bomb during WW2 and we should feel shame for it" then I would be asking the same questions.

1. Are morals objective? If so, then if spending money on the bomb is objectively immoral then we can agree on that and might feel shame for spending money on it. Or not.
2. Are morals subjective? If so, then what we think today about spending money on the bomb has no bearing on what they thought about it back in WW2. Even if we think it is immoral now, they did not back then, and if morals are subjective then neither of us has any claim to which standard is "real" - so why would I have any shame over it?

Except the issue here is not "how are morals derived (the metaethical discussion.) The issue being discussed here is "If you believe action X by a nation is wrong, is it reasonable to feel a sense of group shame about it?"