I'm not sure of where I fall on the moral relativism / universality spectrum. It seems like there is a core set of principles that apply regardless of one's cultural upbringing (i.e., do not kill other humans), but even those principles have exceptions. Anything on top of that seems open to debate...I've seen too many cases where five intelligent people hear the same facts and walk away with differing interpretations and conclusions. There's some sort of sub-conscious filter we each apply based on our "world view."
This is where team/group dynamics seem to get very interesting - since everyone at the table brings their world view, and it almost becomes a food fight between differing perspectives. I admit I argue my opinions as voraciously as anyone else! The irony is that neither perspective seems to be any more right than another - but to make the "best decision" the team seems to lean towards a more common viewpoint. Majority rules. This is fine, albeit frustrating when one is in the minority camp.
The part that is annoying is the argument tends to go down the path of "which side has more proof" - when it seems like either side can be argued just as well with just as many supporting facts, and at the end of the day it comes down to personal preference on importance weights applied to facts. As illustrated in the 9/11 report, erasing a minority viewpoint can lead to an intelligence failure - i.e., the majority is not always right. This is why minority opinions are so important. This is why we have a democracy. This is why our society adopts minority viewpoints over time and changes.
These failures could be prevented if people would own up to "this is my preference" rather than saying "this is right" so both sides are heard. My preference is to see the good in others. I am happier this way. Is it right or wrong - I don't know! Probably sometimes right and sometimes wrong depending on the evaluation mechanism. But I know that is my preference. For this reason, if the team wants to see that there's a spook in every corner, I will learn to *reluctantly* go with that viewpoint if there's no significant harm to a population. Pick your battles :) This is a new practice, and I will mess up, but can learn to do it!
I remember learning about deontological ethics (the "rules" types; duty first, etc.) and teleological ethics (ends justify the means) among different ethical viewpoints. I've encountered folks who exercise each of those perspectives more frequently. I guess I'm a hybrid of the two - so always balancing it all on some sort of scale that gets re-vectored.
The interesting thing is I find it easier to understand teleological arguments - profitability is our motive and doing x will lead to more profit - and seem to not experience as much conflict with folks who apply that lens more frequently because it's clearer to me. I understand the outcomes they seek and can find a path towards said outcomes. I am not willing to "go as far" from a means perspective - and it can be frustrating when others employ means that come into conflict with things I'm trying to do that I think are morally better - but whatever it makes sense :)
I get confused when I deal with rules types...cause well very little seems absolute to me. It makes me angry when I hear "this is how this works" or "this is THE path" or "this is THE process" because it's easy to find a million equally effective counterexamples given objectives that also pass a moral test. I guess this is the challenge any relativist would have when dealing with absolution. Maybe I should read more Kant and practice applying rule sets!
The weird thing is I've seen folks with different rule sets UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER. It's a complete mind boggle. But I guess they are both applying the same ethical lens - so one reads the others actions as "oh that's their rule" and vice versa? Ack. No wonder they can't understand me - too many inconsistencies across non-existent rules lol.
No comments:
Post a Comment