Principle and Substance
In Hell I tried to say that whilst I definitely don’t believe what Lee Anderson is saying about Sadiq Khan, I find myself agreeing with him in standing by what you believe. I tried to say that the principle of standing up for what you believe is different from the substance of said belief. People standing up for what they believe led to end of slavery. Led to the formation of the USA. Do we agree that a principle is different from the substance of the belief.
Comments
For example...
Statement 1
The monk who burned himself alive in 1963 to protest the anti-Buddhist repression on South Vietnam was a man of principle.
Statement 2
Those upper-caste university kids who burned themselves alive to protest affirmative-action programs in India in the early 90s were men of principle.
Both those statements are true(since in both cases, the protestors were willing to forego any benefit to themselves to promote their cause), but I think most Shipmates would have some aversion to agreeing with the second one, even as they'd likely agree with the first.
No as I keep saying the principle of standing up for one’s beliefs is separate from the substance of one beliefs. If I believe in education for all people, which I do I will stand by that. Just because what someone believes is wrong doesn’t mean the principle of standing up for what you believe is.
To avoid confusion, The Big Lebowski himself didn't say this. Walter Sobchak did to Jeffrey "The Dude" Lebowski.
But there comes a point when this stops being a positive - when there is evidence provided that shows you are wrong. Then the right thing to do is change your mind.
So, I might assert that "It is raining in Manchester". To stick by that belief, despite the fact that I am nowhere near Manchester can be seen as a positive. If we were planning on visiting Manchester, going prepared for rain because of my belief that it is raining there would then be an indication of the strength of my belief.
But if I contacted someome in Manchester who said it was bright and sunny, and looked on weather apps which said it was bright and no raid expected, and found cameras that indicated no rain, and then persisted in my view that it was raining, that would be a bad trait.
If I were to pursue that by getting dressed up in rain gear for my visit, despite the obvious sun, that would be almost certainly a sign of a bigotted, biased person who hates Manchester.
(I often don't like it very much, but then I have to live here. I think strong opinions on the part of a voluntary visitor would be unusual - but I often fail to anticipate others' vexations. Rain gear remains a sensible precaution, in case anyone here decides to come despite my lack of enthusiasm.)
But what if my beliefs are only weakly held? There are things that I believe to be true, and there are different levels of confidence that I have in those beliefs. For some beliefs, I'll stand up for them strongly. For others, it would take relatively little contradictory data to persuade me that my belief was mistaken.
I'm not convinced that "lacking the courage of your convictions" is a moral failing.
The value of standing up for what one believes is entirely dependent on the value of the belief.
I don't see why an example is needed, but here is one:
The highly principled terrorists who flew planes into the World Trade Center towers, dying for their beliefs in the process, had evil believes and acted evilly on those evil beliefs.
There is nothing admirable in their principles.
I did, of course, choose Manchester because of its reputation. And having rain gear makes sense when visiting.
The only real point is retaining convictions about something beyond reasonable evidence otherwise is not a positive. I mean the conversation rarely actually happen, but when you can imagine them resorting to "Well I am right" or "[this indisputable authority] says so" then it is beyond reasonable.
I would rather have people who are committed to their position than people who will change their minds just beause someone disagrees with them. Who is never going to stand by what they believe.
Because then I can argue with their beliefs if I disagree (which I will, to some extent). Because then we can have a rational conversation.
Love the trams.
And that reputation has been wrong for the last 50 years or so. Prior to the various Clean Air Acts industrial and other air pollution meant that Manchester had prolonged periods of faint drizzle. It does not have less rain now, but it comes in shorter and heavier bursts like the rest of the country.
(Note that I visited Manchester several times in the 1950s and lived there from 1970 to 1996. The difference was very noticeable.)
Not in most of rich Western culture, no. At least another quarter of the world will have a different distribution of feelings.
Yeah. I get your point.
As so often seems to be the case I disagree with @Martin54. Acting on convictions that are wrong so as to kill lots of random strangers whom you know nothing about, who neither know you or know anything about you, but against whom, for some reason, you have decided you have a legitimate grudge is wrong. Believing your grudge justifies you in doing this is wrong.
That there are people elsewhere who agree with you, doesn't make it any less wrong. They are wrong too.
Being prepared to die for false principles is a matter between you and God. Harming others in the process adds a whole extra dimension, and I don't think God thinks kindly of it.
I think it is a major and all too prevalent error to think there's something special worthy about ideological beliefs, that standing by them makes one a person of principle, and that not rating ideologies highly makes a person unprincipled and somehow less admirable. What is a lot more important is whether a person loves their neighbour, is kind, tells the truth, is honest and stands by those close to them. Those things may be dull but they are a lot worthier than dogma.
They are also, in my experience, harder work.
Going back to the OP, I can't speak for the soul of the inner Lee Anderson. Nevertheless does anyone really think that his utterances come from some nodule of inner high principles rather than what he thinks plays best with his image with the sort of people whose support he wants?
If so, please say so. I'd like to know.
@Enoch @Gamma Gamaliel @Martin54
The particular example I used IS problematic in the context of this discussion, because its meaning IS open to interpretation (heroism/self-defense vs murder/terrorism), AND (?nearly?) all of us are complicit in, benefit from, or approve of "principles acts" that are just as evil.
I don't think there was any question that "principled acts" can be evil, but that some principled acts are open to interpretation because of competing interests, needs and histories.
I must give over any more talk on this particular subdiscussion to Martin54, as it is not my place to speak for him.
Could you explain this some more, please?
I'm only thinking of examples that would counter this, except maybe at a very personal level, and even then.....
Sorry @Kendel, that was to @Enoch's post that you quote.
Us privileged (and thus) ignorant Westerners can claim absolute moral high ground all we like, that's not how the world works. Historical injustice flew the planes of 9 11. As it has ever since 1946 and back to 1917 with typically 25 times the vengeance.
It's ALL wrong.
If only it were possible to objectively determine which beliefs are right and which are wrong.
How do you know they’re wrong? Maybe they’re right and you’re wrong?
Assuming God exists, of course.
The claim that those are the most important things is itself an ideological belief. The assertion of their superiority is itself a dogma.
Do you think an understanding of ethics must be founded in an ideology? Or is it possible to find common ethics across the different ideologies?
It seems possible to me to examine critically truth versus lies, selfishness versus unselfishness, love versus hate, without the examination becoming entangled in ideology. Or in your view is my opinion also a form of ideology?
So fundamentally there's a tension between a sense of the word in which everyone has an ideology and it just means value system with no judgement about whether it's true or false, and a sense in which it means something that isn't based in reality and which presumably only other people have. And then you get people who that run the two senses together so according to them everyone has a value system which isn't grounded in reality.
Sure, there may be areas of agreement between different ideologies. But as Enoch said above, the number of people who agree with you about one of your beliefs has no bearing on whether that belief is, in fact, true.
Who says love is better than hate, truth better than lies, unselfishness better than selfishness? For that matter, who gets to define what any of those words actually mean? There’s no objective basis to any of them, no verifiable truth to point to. It’s all a matter of opinion.
That’s why I find it so ridiculous for anyone to assert that it’s only a good thing to stand by your principles and beliefs if they are actually true. Because what that actually means in practice is “if you agree with me”.
Good or bad for whom?
Let me try another tack. The philosopher A J Ayer observed that he was in favour of scrupulous behaviour even though he could not find a confirmation of that in his philosophy. Currently I'm reading Beevor's 'The Second World War' and have come across the use of of 'comfort homes' for Japanese soldiers. Captured females were forced to have sex with up to thirty men a day (yes, there were targets). Is the condemnation of such behaviour as war crimes purely a matter of opinion about what constitutes unscrupulous behaviour? Is the definition of suffering purely a matter of opinion? Are scruples purely a matter of opinion?
I may be misunderstanding you but you seem to be arguing that ethics are merely a matter of cultural relativity.
To look at the Japanese issue, my best friend’s father was a survivor of Japanese imprisonment and suffered a very great deal during that. A Japanese charity invited my friend plus survivors and relatives of survivors to an expenses paid trip to Japan during which they received a public and heartfelt apology for the dreadful mistreatment they had suffered.
That seemed to him and to me to transcend the cultural values and ethics of bushido which to some extent justified mistreatment of prisoners. And was a sign that perhaps moral understanding in Japan had moved on. My friend said that there was more going on than assuagement of guilt.
Perhaps I can use the word benign? Perhaps ethical criticism may give rise to a more benign understanding of how to treat other people? That seems to me to transcend moral and cultural relativism. What can encourage such transcendence?
And the bad?
Yes. If the Japanese had won the war then such things would now be seen as perfectly normal.
Probably not, but the definition of which people should or should not be allowed to suffer is. To the Japanese culture of WW2 times it was clear that anyone who is not Japanese has no inherent rights at all.
That’s exactly what I’m saying.
How about your own opinion? I assume that you find “comfort homes” within which captives are subject to rape are disgusting. Is that opinion reduced in value because of cultural relativism? Do you not see that a culture which accepted it as “perfectly normal” is somehow diseased in its understanding of right and wrong?
If you lived in such a culture do you believe it would be possible to hold such a critical opinion?
If it were so, I'd expect to see a lot less resistance to movements like Nazism etc. My own experience suggests that beliefs that are merely culturally rooted also change with the dominant culture, and rarely inspire someone to risk life and limb (or even friendships, really) to withstand them.
I think you are saying that there are beliefs which transcend culture. I believe that to be true of certain moral values.
C S Lewis wrote a book (The Abolition of Man) in which he argued that moral relativism was a step on the way to nihilism. Now it may be difficult these days to identify what those values might be but that is not a denial that they do exist. Nihilism is very dangerous since it can justify all manner of cruelties.
The bad what? People? Bad low life expectancy poor people?
I doubt that, there was a reason the Japanese army did it to non-Japanese. It's far more likely that had they won the war that documentary evidence would have been suppressed and eventually have ended up on the bottom of the Pacific, in the same way that was the case for Operation Legacy.
Yes.
As I think he pointed out, the broad moral principle may take different expressions in different cultures, but the underlying point is still there. He gave the example of marriage--that you may get monogamy, polygamy, even various forms of polycules and what have you, but there is no culture that says you may sleep with anyone you want.
The same is true for homicide causing death to members of the human species. We argue over abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment etc., but no culture thinks this is an option open to anybody at any time for any reason.
And so on, and so forth. The agreement of all known human cultures on these things suggests very strongly that there is something deeper at work in the universe. Of course there will be arguments about what that is.
And the fact that people can and do stand against the culture prevailing in their area--and so commonly!-- also suggests they have found roots in something deeper than complete moral relativity.
Evolution.
My dad came back from Germany in 1945 horrified by two things. The first was the clearing up of the horrors of a concentration camp, where he saw things he had nightmares about for the rest of his life. The second was the desolation of Hamburg following numerous allied bombing raids. He saw the destruction of residential areas and the city centre. “Strategic targets they told us? Bullshit!”
I think he saw the first as a horrible sign of antisemtitic cruelty. The second, he always argued, that it might have been a necessary evil, but if so”why lie about it? Terrorising civilians was obviously a part of it”.
I think his moral sense transcended cultural boundaries. He saw the wrongs done by some Germans and the wrongs done to some Germans.