Ideology is nothing but post-rationalization

[The Mad Viking]

I have come to this conclusion.

I understand that Ideology is often developed as pure ideas.

But I do not believe it is EVER adopted based on the inherent beauty of its logic.

Individuals and societies do what they believe they need to do in order to survive and prosper.

Ideologies are the clothes they dress up their actions in.

They are selected to best suit the necessary behaviour, and to effectively sell the needed behaviour, both to oneself and one's citizens.

Anyone disagree? **ducks**

[Fake Boris]

I began undergrad studies of philosophy 2 years ago. On several instances I have changed my mind on an issue after reading arguments I found to be convincing.

[BeBMan]

I am not sure how you use ideology here.

Generally I don't think everything must be logical proven to become useful. Human rights aren't "proven" in that sense, still I think they are great.

[Odin]

Re: Ideology is nothing but post-rationalization

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
I have come to this conclusion.

I understand that Ideology is often developed as pure ideas.

But I do not believe it is EVER adopted based on the inherent beauty of its logic.

Individuals and societies do what they believe they need to do in order to survive and prosper.

Ideologies are the clothes they dress up their actions in.

They are selected to best suit the necessary behaviour, and to effectively sell the needed behaviour, both to oneself and one's citizens.

Anyone disagree? **ducks**

Iagree. An Ideology can only become popular if a society's culture and world-view permit it.

[Last Conformist]

Disagree.

You're basically assuming the Marxist view, which says ideology is an epiphenomenon, wholly conditioned by the socioeconomic foundations.

Personally, I think influence goes both ways - socioeconomics influence ideology, but ideology influences socioeconomics too. I believe most historians and anthropologists would subscribe to this.

[Az]

I don't think this is true for individuals from my personal experience. I have adopted my ideology, my ethics because of their logic - and changed my worldview on several issues accordingly. I also often fail to live up to my own standards.

So yes, I have chosen my ethics ( and I have no ideology besides them - or to be precise, one that contradicts them and isn't an extention of them ) because of their deep logic.

[joncha]

We need to rationalise our posts now? What is the OT coming to.

[KrazyHorse]

Ideology is not entirely post-rationalisation any more than is science entirely post-rationalisation.

My ideology is driven from three directions:

a) That it is entirely internally logically consistent

b) That it does not lead to repugnant conclusions

c) That it is as simple and elegant as possible while not violating a or b

In other words, it's the same as the scientific method, with a different form of observational evidence.

[KrazyHorse]

The same as science, morality is an iterative process.

1) Get some observations
2) Create a theory to explain these observations
3) Make predictions based on this theory
4) See how well these predictions match up to future observations

The only real challenge lies in separating cultural taboos from morally unacceptable situations, e.g. incest involving two adult partners without the chance of conception

[Az]

b) That it does not lead to repugnant conclusions

what are those? Aren't 'repugnant' defined as 'severly unethical'? or at least shouldn't they be? If so, this is circular logic. And if not, how is this repugnancy any more 'fierce' than an Nth number of silly cultural rules, and what amounts to the moral superstition that people held in prior times, or will probably hold in the future?

[KrazyHorse]

It's not circular. It's a question of how you feel about a situation. Then it's a question of separating the morally repugnant from the merely taboo.

That step's the one that separates morality from mathematics.

[KrazyHorse]

IOW, there's no "right" answer on how to go about it. You and I might follow the same process and end up with completely different ideologies (or moral systems, or whatever you want to call them).

For instance, some might find it acceptable (necessary even) to sacrifice ten ordinary men to save the life of one great artist or scientist. I would not. That division in the "gut reaction" is what divides somebody who believes that all human life is of equal value from somebody who believes that the value of a human life is based on its worth to society.

[KrazyHorse]

Others might think that incest is a simple moral evil in the same way that murder is, and add the necessary axioms to their moral system to make that conclusion possible. I would feel my aversion to the act of incest, note the additional axioms which would be necessary, and reject their addition based on their lack of universality (in other words how badly they fit in with the rest of the axioms). This would draw me to the conclusion that incest merely violates taboo, and shouldn't break any real moral precepts.

[Az]

but why should how you feel about the situation matter?

[Bereta_Eder]

FREE PALESTINE!