>>4219>>4219>I mean that it is not a concrete thing like an individual or government building, it has reality more in the mind.
So you mean a social construct? >Well, yes. Perhaps conventional if the enforcement has a pattern.
I was making reference to the piaget's conception of moral development. Preconventional morality is essentially moral obedience for the sake of avoiding punishment, conventional morality is moral behavior for the consideration of others in one's community. Postconventional means a morality based in adherence to abstract moral principles.
All children start with a preconventional morality and develop a conventional morality when they grow and move away from the need for a deterrent to bad behaviors.
The authoritarian meta-ethic literally robs people of the ability to develop a conventional morality, especially when that authority continually reinforces to whom they pressume to rule over, that they would be incapable of any morals without them, thus creating
self-fulfilling prophecies, creating
people incapable of morality without an authority figures. Essentially like victims of emotional abuse manipulated into being incapable of autonomy. >If humans could be trusted to follow ethical standard of their choice, I don't see why they would need enforcement.
But the fundamental illusion of authoritative power reveals that by in large, humans can
be trusted to follow their own ethical principles.
The authorities serve them by being a security blanket for those who understand that they
might not need an authority, but their fear and loathing of other people lead them to find a great appeal in someone having control over them. >>4219>Well, I'd say the purpose is it supersedes the individual. Some authorities are subject to bigger authorities. But when you get to the biggest authority, there's nothing to challenge it. I guess that's as close as you get to absolute. I think there's something that keep authorities from being arbitrary. Something about human empathy, probably.
I don't think you understand what I was saying here. I mean "absolute morality" in the sense that the morals and ethical principles are rigid, unchanging, and are not flexible or dependent on the circumstances.
The assumption of most authoritarian meta-ethics is that a morality derived from an authority is absolute, but logically it cannot be if that authority has the power to redefine what "good" and "evil" even are or what they mean for any reason whatsoever.
Likewise, if moral value derives from the decree of an authority, it is neccesarily arbitrary because any sort of immutable instrinsic property or inevitable consequence of any action is completely irrelevant.
An absolute morality must
transcend all authorities if it is to be absolute, even gods
. And it cannot be arbitrary, as it has to be justified by the innate properties and inevitable (or highly probable) consequences of the actions in question. >I think there's something that keep authorities from being arbitrary. Something about human empathy, probably.
Which further contradicts the idea that authorities are necessary. In order for the authority's morality to be non-abitrary, the morality must be based in the properties of which behaviors be prohibited or commanded. Something that exist independent of the authority itself.
Which logically implies that the authority is essentially a kind of middleman rather than a source of any morality whatsoever. And given that authorities (and the illusion of authorities power) are essentially invented by the people they have authority over, then the real purpose is confirmation of an already preexisting morality that didn't derive from any other authority other than the authority of collective agreement on moral principles amongst the masses to begin with. It ultimately exist to aswage the cognitive dissonance between a desire for all
the answers, right now
and a terror at the possibility that there is no perfect or even ideal answer to most (if not all) moral conundrums.
It's fundamentally a self deception, or an example of living in bad faith (in the Satrean sense) to believe that the authorities we invent necessarily have greater access to moral truths than any of us do, despite their humanity and all the limitations and fallibility they would have, because of our fears of being wrong about these things. Thus authority, paradoxically enough, serves to absolve us of personal responsibilities for mistakes in moral judgement, or as cover for immoral actions we take as being good because they are "obedient". >>4219>Maybe if it happened once or twice and they learned.
It's been happening over and over again throughout history that some cultures (like traditional chinese cultures) come to expect the backlash and destruction of authority figures to be a fundamental part of the cycle of chinese history, just to name one example.
And it happens all over the world. There are few cultures on earth that do not have an underground counterculture of people marginalized, disenfranchised and dispossessed by the authorities of that culture, who frequently exist despite the denunciations of authorities that they do exist. Plus, many of tge disenfranchised and marginalized in any culture frequently serve as justification on the part of the authority for it's own perpetuation, even if that means rewriting the history of their own culture
. Because, again, the authorities do not transcend humanity or their own addiction to power.
Basically the only justifications for authoritarianism are the problems that authoritarianism creates
for itself (but denies responsibility for)