How to Think Like a Knowledge Worker by William P. Sheridan - HTML preview

PLEASE NOTE: This is an HTML preview only and some elements such as links or page numbers may be incorrect.
Download the book in PDF, ePub, Kindle for a complete version.

SOCIAL

What are social principles?

Social principles concern one's relationship with other individuals and society in general.  What makes them social is their social referentiality.  Sometimes confusion arises because of the claim that ALL principles are personal since it is persons who hold them - according to this proposition, because persons hold principles therefore all principles are personal.  That is fallacious.  What makes a principle "social" is the content of the commitment, NOT where it resides.  The general content of social principles involves what one desires in terms of the quality of social life.  The corollary of this is that the subject of social ethics concerns the responsibilities and obligations one owes to others.  Libertarians (such as Ayn Rand and Margaret Thatcher) hold the view that "there is no society, only individuals [families, friends, acquaintances, colleagues, etc.]" and that one should decide for one's self about any responsibilities to them.  Ironically, the very things such people value the most (property and contracts) are social inventions, defined and protected by social morality.

The notion of "libertarian ethics" really is a non-starter.  It is a hermit's view of life, the attitude of those social psychologists call "social isolates".

This is NOT however, an invitation to go overboard in the social principles direction and presume that all ethics are of a social nature.  People have moral responsibilities to themselves AND to others, AND the larger (transcendental) context, which must be balanced.  The caricature of ethics as exclusively other-regarding can become the stereotype of "our primary role in life is to help others", with no acknowledgement or role for personal aspirations of an ethical nature at all.

That view of ethics could be characterized as "crude social control".  It assumes that there is an inherent conflict of interest between one's self and others, and that the interests of others are on "the high ground" whereas one's own interests are intrinsically unethical.  Using social principles to rationalize the pursuit of personal objectives is the kind of hypocrisy that this approach often leads to - analysis reveals that selfishness is operating, but masked by a "caring" rhetoric.

How are social values manifest?

Altruism is the unselfish concern for the welfare of others.  But when such "unselfish" concern leads to self-sacrifice, there is something wrong with the quality of one's own self-regard. Collectivism is social control instilled by conditioning through traditions and habits.  The mechanism is what sociologists call institutions, the "rules of the game".  The challenge here is to recognize the trade-off between reflectivity and reflexivity, and to determine when each is appropriate.  Elitism involves social leadership, either voluntarily arranged or formally imposed. Since cooperation and coordination always require some organization and accountability, a leadership role invariably arises, however ephemeral it may prove to be.  Many such roles are semi-permanent, and those in these roles often find themselves (implicitly) adopting the Iron Law of Oligarchy (perpetuate your policies by choosing your successor).

Reference

Jeremy Bentham

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE PRINCIPLES OF MORALS AND LEGISLATION

Methuen & Company, London, 1982 [1789]