Nagel makes the distinction between public and private morality. I equate this argument to "which way does the arrow go?" I would like to personally think that individual morals would trump the morals displayed in an institution. Although, I understand that institutional morals may override private morals. Nagel also touches on the subject of the theory of obligation. He rejects this theory that ones holds the institution above private morals. Nagel observes that there are limits of obligations to the state. A soldier would hopefully hold his peers above his country.
Nagel also observes that if one were to hold his country above all else, then that could be used to "justify anything." As I read this this reading I couldn't help but think of the parallels to the past eight years at the federal level. One could say that our country needs results to prevent another 9/11 even if the means are not moral. If those means are torture, who is at fault. Politicians accepted to guard our homeland, but in doing so, they used immoral means. A politician may hold the institution above everything else. (The C.I.A used fualty evidence) Is the institution inherently dirty, for example the C.I.A.? Even so, Nagel thinks that an individual can be just as liable as the institution. I agree with Nagel that public and private morality are intertwined. One must look to his/her institution for the context of their moral responsibilities.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with many of Adam's points and, to a degree, with Nagel's conclusion that the morality of the outcome must often be weighed more heavily, in public life, than the morality of the means used to achieve that end. However, I strongly disagree with the assumption that immoral means are required to adequately defend our nation. When Barack Obama ordered Guantanamo Bay to be closed, he stated that we must "reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals" (cnn.com). I think Obama's point is certainly valid and that the safety of our nation and the morality of its policies are not mutually exclusive. We justify military action as necessary to 'defend freedom' and 'support human rights.' If our government uses the extreme means that they have in the last few years--such as torture and wiretapping--in an effort to defend our nation, they are compromising the very ideals that they claim to defend. So, although the ends may seem to be the most important reflection of morality, it is important to make sure that in reaching the desired end--a nation safe from external threats--one does not sacrifice everything that is worth defending about the nation, destroying it from the inside.
ReplyDeleteI think the most disturbing trend I've seen in all our readings and in our discussions has been the ready acceptance of the idea that an "institution's" needs may trump a person's sense of morality. In my mind, this is a direct result of our cultural, economic obsession with contracts and duty in business. That a governmental position of high influence and far-reaching consequences entails more weighty considerations than a small-scale private citizen's individual action is obvious. However, it is the SCALE of consequences that could alter decision-making, not one's "duty" to his or her institution.
ReplyDeleteHere is a hypothetical example: Say the United States had the opportunity to invade Canada, a very wealthy nation with virtually no army, and it was known that the international community would exonerate the U.S. for such aggression. The end result of such an invasion theoretically would benefit the nation by adding natural resources and valuable (well-educated, affluent, military-eligible, etc.) citizenry. However, it would involve (1) military conquest in which at least thousands would die, and (2) the subjugation of a previously-autonomous people. If one were to insist, as has been the trend in our discussions and readings, that the institution's (the United States') needs trumped the individual's (the President's, for the sake of simplicity) own moral imperative because his first "duty" was to the citizens of the U.S., we would invade Canada, which would be an immoral action.
Now, a President may be put into an unsavory moral position because of the ramifications of his or her decisions--for instance, Walzer's hypothetical terrorist scenario, where the President would choose between torturing a terrorist or letting thousands die in bombings--but in these cases it is the magnitude and nature of the President's position that determine his moral deviance. Whereas most normal private citizens would never be in that position, the President is more likely to have to make such a choice, and it is only a choice because of the magnitude of what is at stake. Yet, even here public morality does not differ from private morality, because if a private citizen was the only one in a position to stop this terrorist and torture was an option, the choice would be no different for that citizen than for the President: either torture with the hope of saving many lives, or don't torture and fully expect that thousands will die.
I reject the claim that in institution's concerns mean more than a person's moral code. In fact, I believe this is a major reason why sweat shops, torture, slavery and many of the abominable acts committed by nations and corporations exist and continue in perpetuity. Removing the "individual" aspect of morality for the sake of business or nation is a tremendously dangerous act, one that leads to evil as often as not.
Jonathan, I think that you present a good point of who shoes are we in. Everything did change after 9/11 and our administration took a very clear stance on the topic of torture. I did not have have to make that decision about protecting our country like Bush had to. I would also add that it seems at points, President Bush seemed like a strong utilitarian. (Torture someone in Gitmo as to save more lives here in the USA) I would argue that the moral thing to do is not to torture, and if a terrorist does strike, then our politicians have done everything within the law, while being morally safe, they may not be held morally accountable for the attacks, although public opinion might say otherwise.
ReplyDelete