Ideology_vs

Page last modified March 18, 2021.

Ideology versus Ethics

by Dr. Marek A. Suchenek

October 22, 2015

This article is posted here for in-class use only. No other use or uses is/are allowed.

Quote from Sara Baase's The Gift of Fire:

"[Ethics] assumes people are rational and make free choices."

One of the visible effects of fast proliferation of computer-based information technology on today's American society is a tendency to gradually replace natural ethics with simplistic ideology. For instance, recent advances in such trendy areas of science as Artificial Intelligence and Predictive Analytics have produced powerful computer-based tools with which one can try to implement and advance utilitarianism (whose definition of "good" requires predicting of consequences of actions) and its ideology.

Unlike ethics, ideology assumes people are not rational and need to be submitted to it (ideology) thus preventing them from making free (allegedly bad) choices. It assumes that they cannot tell the truth from the falsehood, or right from wrong. It assumes that people's natural sense of right and wrong that they developed over many generations, and their attachment to natural rights, are detrimental to humanity and need to be controlled, augmented, and changed. (The latter is often being carried on by means of social engineering.)

For those reasons, ideology distrusts (and often dismisses) free-market and competition and attempts to replace them with something else, for instance, with central planning (that has never worked) and social leveling (that caused misery and preventable deaths of tens of millions of people). In its extreme, ideology assumes that people are stupid and evil, which implies that they should not be allowed to make free choices but be treated as sort of livestock by their wise government, instead.

Ideology puts ideas (however flawed, untested, and half-baked they can be) before the People. Thus it puts the ideas before the humanity, although it usually claims the opposite. Ideology attempts to submit the People to ideas, and as such it is irreconcilable with individual liberty, although it usually claims the opposite. In fact, ideology is a threat for liberty. It is not surprising that ideologues are searching for submissive people with whom to replace the current Americans who "cling" to their individual liberties and the menas of their protection.

Ideology, like sophistry, is a form of assault (usually, on individual liberty) that exploits people's cognitive vulnerabilities for specific political gain (usually, redistribution of property by means of its uncompensated appropriation).

It's worth noting that the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution puts the People before everything else; hence the freedom and prosperity of the American nation. Of course, if Americans were mostly wrong people, or stupid and evil as the extreme ideologues seem to assume, our nation would not have been nearly as exceptionally free and prosperous as it has been. (Never mind millions of immigrants who "vote with their feet" what is the best nation to be a member of.) In particular, the ideology of the so-called "proposition nation" contradicts the above mentioned sentiment expressed by the Preamble to the Constitution and the exceptionality of the American people.

"Ideologies aim to transform society. Other systems of belief do not involve such a commitment [...]."

[John Kekes]

Ethics is a formal expression of morality that captures natural comprehension of right and wrong shared by a group (e.g., society) of free and rational individuals. It slowly evolves with the nature of those individuals as they and their ancestors build more and more sophisticated society that respects and protects their natural rights. The said social evolution is kept in check by the reality they live in and by the natural selection that it entails. If the actions of the members of the group, motivated by their ethics, are adaptive then the society they build becomes sustainable. If, however, those actions are maladaptive then it becomes unsustainable and enters on a path to its gradual extinction.

Ideology does not need ethics. It is based on a set of claims and postulates how to "intelligently" design a society. Neither natural selection nor a compatibility of the ideology with human nature and morality are considered necessary for the said "intelligent design" to succeed. Ethics, as well as the morality it expresses, have often been portrayed, by the ideologues, as obstacles in implementation of ideology because many individuals reject some ideological calls for ethical reasons. In particular, many individuals refuse to submit themselves to ideas, particularly when they find those ideas morally guestionable. Ethics and morality have been also portrayed as "outdated" because they make it more difficult for the ideologues to "update" the society. This is particualrly true in the U.S. whose "conservative" Constitution offers a powerful means of resistance to any such "updates".

When under pressure from prevailingly ethical individuals, the ideologues yield to the will of the majority and declare themselves "ethical". However, the utilitarian "ethics" they usually adopt is trivial and a caricature of natural one. They proclaim that everything that helps implementation of their ideology is good and everything that obstructs it is evil. Such a semantical trick yields the utilitarian definition of good as anything that increases the utility.

This deceptive measure allows some otherwise well-meaning and ethical individuals to jump on the bandwagon of ideology and submit their natural sense of right and wrong to ideological self-censorship. That fact itself explains pathological tendencies of ideology-based societies as individuals who have excused themselves from breaking ethical rules for the "grater cause" (the ideology, that is) have a potential of turning themselves into monsters of oppression and ruthlessness once vested with political power. It strongly suggests that ideology is the root cause of many socio-ethical problems that are plaguing the West, for instance, a tendency to eliminate morality from social interactions (which contributes to - among other wrongs - mass shootings) and an increase in opportunistic attitudes among individuals, just to name two.

From the above perspective, there is nothing surprising about the atrocities of ideologically driven governments and ruling cliques, in particular, those headed by Robespierre, Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Zedong, Pol Pot, and many others.

Here is a quote from
John Kekes
"Why Robespierre Chose Terror;
The lessons of the first totalitarian revolution,"
City Journal, Spring 2006

"Castigating Robespierre more than 200 years after his death would have little point if he were not the prototype of the ideological frame of mind that is very much with us today. If we understand him, we understand that it is utterly useless to appeal to reason and morality in dealing with ideologues. For they are convinced that reason and morality are on their side and that their enemies are irrational and immoral simply because they are enemies."

Note (by M.S.) If ideologues cannot silence their critics then they seem to have a fallacy for every occasion when they are out to defend their ideology and the facts that those critics bring up. Such a defense is known under the name of sophistry.

So, if you are not willing to engage in a rational discourse with your adversary (with whom you disagree on issues) and would rather have him silenced, instead, or you would rather resort to fallacious arguments (a.k.a. sophistry) in order to win the debate (this was exactly what the sophists were doing) then you may have a natural propensity to ideology and/or collectivism.

The source of ideology

Some roots of today's ideology in the Western countries, including the U.S., can be traced to Russia, former Soviet Union (a major source of activist ideologues in the U.S.), and Germany (cultural Marxism that was conceived in 1920s at University of Frankfurt originates from there). The ideology was injected into the American society via public education system, several major mass media, and entertainment.

"Many people, of course, do not choose the ideology they hold but acquire it through indoctrination. It may be too much to demand of them to resist indoctrination, if it is persistent and sophisticated, and if they know of no reasonable alternatives. Not being able to resist ideological indoctrination, however, is one thing; committing atrocities in its name is quite another. People do have a choice as to whether they torture or murder. Decent people will question their ideology if they see that it leads to inflicting horrors. And if they do not question it and commit atrocities, then they are justly held responsible not for what they believe but for what they have done." [John Kekes, op.cit.]

Ideologies of the Left

MARXISM AS PSEUDO-SCIENCE

http://www.reasonpapers.com/pdf/12/rp_12_3.pdf

Postmodernism: The Destruction Of Thought

http://rayharvey.org/index.php/2009/11/postmodernism-the-destruction-of-thought/

"Whereas modernism preached reason and science, postmodernism preaches social subjectivism and knowledge by consensus.

Whereas modernism preached free-will and self-governance, postmodernism preaches determinism and the rule of the collective."

Collectivism does need ideology, while individualism does not.

Individualism does need ethics and - therefore - has to promote individual freedom and rationality in order to survive and prosper.

There is no such thing as a "Right-wing ideology" in America;

American "Right-wing" is associated with individual freedom while ideology expects submission.

If something is ideological (or political) in America then it usually belongs to the Left. If it is profoundly ideological (or political) then it belongs squarely to the Left.

Footnotes.

1. See Slides for Chapter 1, slide 106.

2. Ideology should not be confused with idea(s) or idealism.

3. Adaptive act (or behavior) is an act (or behavior) that increases actor's chances of having offspring that will survive to their reproductive age.

4. Maladaptive act (or behavior) is an act (or behavior) that decreases actor's chances of having offspring that will survive to their reproductive age.

5. For instance, the failures of socialism have been often attributed to its incompatibility with the human nature.

6. Unless one irrationally assumes that some forms of socialism or collectivism (both being opposites of individualism) are "Right-wing" (see the diagram, below).