"re-worked" thesis

so this is what i "want to argue"

Whether the society's moral conscience is held more powerfully by the people or the leader depends on the amount of control that the government holds and consequently allows its people to hold.

The more say that people have in the government, the more that the conscience of the people will be reflected in the laws of the society. Therefore, the people will be more willing to abide by those laws, even if the choice that they advocated at first didn't become the actual law. Conflicts, especially questions regarding moral issues, help create this kind of situation because they make the opportunity for people to make decisions about what they believe, what they would like their society to deem as acceptable or not, etc. An issue comes up, people advocate one side or the other, and one side or the other wins (theoretically, a law is made supporting the "winning side"). When this decision is made by the majority, everyone pretty much agrees to follow the law because they see that it's a fair system. They had a say, but it's not what the majority wanted. Now, there are of course people who ardently disagree with certain laws, governmental policies, but it's rare that revolutions start all over the country because someone wasn't pleased with a court decision (this would mean that the majority won only by a little, maybe). The unlikelihood of something like this happening is evidence that people, for the most part, go along with the majority - because of the innate tendency to conform; because we need to belong to the "group."

I'm basically back to my same because, but hopefully my thoughts are a little clearer. At least they're clearer to me. That's a start.

evidence, claims, reasoning, uh.. what?

Conflict plays an important role in the defining of a society's conscience because it brings up the opportunity for different options to be taken. We are provided with certain alternatives to choose from by our leaders and whether "good" or "bad," we choose a side and therefore define the conscience of our society as a whole. And in an ideal situation, because the leader is ultimately in accord with what the majority wants, the factor of the leader having more or less power over the society's conscience than the people themselves is no longer a valid, arguable point. Whichever side the majority picks becomes "good." This is so because of the innate tendency to conform to a society's determined moral code/set of values; because of the penchant for seeking acceptance from the "big group."

www.philosophypages.com

Evidence #1: "The distinction between virtue and vice belongs only to the law of opinion or reputation and is sanctioned only by the praise or blame of others. Although public opinion always praises the virtuous, the standards of virtue and vice vary widely among different cultures." (Locke on Morality)

Claim #1: People are always seeking acceptance - even in making the most important moral decisions. And therefore, the definitions of words such as "virtuous" and "immoral" are ever-changing and vary among different societies.

Reasoning #1 (Generalization): A lot of times, people "know" what is right and wrong simply by the definition that their society places on the issues. People mostly agree that drug use is a bad thing because that's what the laws say - that's what the general consensus is now. But during the 1960's, a hippie generation rose up and made drugs a "normal" thing, at least if you were a part of the movement. The line between "right" and "wrong" is drawn by the standards of the general current opinion or reputation of the sector of society in which you live.

Evidence #2: "Good and evil generally are to be considered nothing more than tendencies to produce pleasure and pain, and moral good and evil are nothing other than special instances of this association, the reward and punishment artificially annexed by a powerful legislator as the consequences that follow from human actions by virtue of their conformity with or difference from the dictates of moral law." (Locke on Action) OR "A closely related idea is that violations of convention elicit some kind of sanction, such as tangible punishment or, more commonly, negative reactive attitudes. Lewis emphasizes the self-perpetuating character of convention: one conforms because it is in one's interest to conform, given that others conform. But, the argument goes, this emphasis overlooks a distinct enforcement mechanism: non-conformity elicits some kind of sanction from other people." (Lewishttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/convention/)

Claim #2: The people who stray from the generally-accepted values of a society are punished because essentially, they aren't conforming to the "norm." The legislator that punishes is only acting as an extension of the general population; an extension that has authority.

Reasoning #2 (): When a conflict occurs and someone (or a small faction of people) decide to go against the grain, they are often met with great opposition, no matter what may truly be right or wrong. A lot of times, they are looked back upon, generations later, and recognized for their "radical" then, but now "correct" ideas. Examples of this: Civil Rights Movement, Women's Rights Movement, even Joan of Arc! People at first were not open to these revolutionary events/people that lead them, but now, if anyone considers women or blacks inferior, they are seen as old-fashioned at best and prejudiced and bigoted at worst.

Evidence #3: "Pre-existing convention is so overwhelmingly salient that agents expect one another to abide by it, an expectation which furnishes reason to conform." (Lewis) http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/convention/

Claim #3: The desire for acceptance works in a cycle of sorts - the expectations people have of each other continually reinforce the necessity of the actions they take.

Reasoning #3 (cause and effect): Certain conventions are so deeply-set in the morals of a society that everyone expects everyone else to follow them. The expectations people have about others' opinions concerning an issue directly cause a ramification of that belief.

"It's all so... CONVOLUTED..." she said

things to put together:

• i think
• because
• a clear indication to which prompt i'm writing about
• a clear answer to thesis question

Thesis Q.

Why does conflict play such an essential role in defining the conscience of a society and its leaders? How do the different roles played by the leaders and followers affect conflict and therefore the conscience of the civilization?

A.

I think conflict plays an important role in the defining of a society's conscience because it brings up the opportunity for different options to be taken. We are given choices to make, and whether "good" or "bad," we choose a side and therefore define the conscience of our society as a whole. This is so because in order for people to define their needs and wants, it's necessary that they first be exposed to real alternatives. The position of the leader is to provide these and then mediate when people start taking sides.

another approach? eh

Conflict produces consciousness and therefore helps us define a society's conscience. We are forced to listen up, care, and take a stand - or not, which would be "taking a stand" as well. This is so because in order for people to define their needs and wants, it's necessary that they first be exposed to real alternatives. The position of the leader is to provide these, and then mediate when people start taking sides.

Is this clear enough? Does it make any sense? haha, or maybe it's too simple..

Thesis-ing

Why does conflict play such an essential role in defining the conscienceof a society and its leaders? How do the different roles played by theleaders and followers affect conflict and therefore the conscience of the civilization?

1. it causes different ideas to come up, different options which make people look to themselves and ask, "what do I want?" *presidential elections, different "controversial issues"*
2. it causes factions, which leaders have to deal with to come to a compromise *opposing political parties, different lobbyist groups, special interests groups, conscientious objectors, counterculture of 60's*
3. it makes the society have to work as an entire group, even if it's just people working to oppose each other *mostly the idea of the group focusing in on one topic whichever sides people choose (or not choose)*
4. it causes leaders to have to make decisions about their own motives and desires, and how much of their personal will they impose upon the followers *LBJ deciding to go on with the Vietnam War, Nixon's "peace with honor"/widening scope of war, 60's conflicts, civil rights movement facing opposition from governors, mayors, etc esp. in the South..*
5. it helps the society define the guidelines of 'who controls what?' *three branches of gvt vs. monarchies, constitutional monarchies*

Whenever a society defines and alters its unique sense of conscience, conflict plays an essential role. It acts as a catalytic agent, causing different ideas to manifest, different options to become available, and thus pushing people to decide what their moral boundaries are individually as well as a whole. And because of the individuality that conflicts often highlight, leaders are usually put in the position to facilitate and consequently decide as well how much of their personal motives they allow to affect their role of an "objective leader." Conflict helps us define who we are, what we believe, and how much we are in tune with our leaders in those beliefs.

Research on COnflict

http://www.iep.utm.edu/h/hobmoral.htm
Hobbes says that governments have been "foisted upon people by force and fraud, not by collective agreement." But he also says "Liberty is freedom of motion, and I am free to move whichever way I wish, unless I am literally enchained. If I yield to threats of violence, that is my choice, for physically I could have done otherwise. If I obey the sovereign for fear of punishment or in fear of the state of nature, then that is equally my choice. Such obedience then comes, for Hobbes, to constitute a promise that I will continue to obey." Aren't those contradictory statements? What is he really saying about leadership/government?

One of his main arguments is that everyone is looking out for themselves. That everyone has a right to do whatever he needs to safeguard himself.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/h/hegelsoc.htm#H5
Thus, ethical life is permeated with both objectivity and subjectivity: regarded objectively it is the state and its institutions, whose force (unlike abstract right) depends entirely on the self-consciousness of citizens, on their subjective freedom; regarded subjectively it is the ethical will of the individual which (unlike the moral will) is aware of objective duties that express one's inner sense of universality. The rationality of the ethical order of society is thus constituted in the synthesis of the concept of the will, both as universal and as particular, with its embodiment in institutional life.
The synthesis of ethical life means that individuals not only act in conformity with the ethical good but that they recognize the authority of ethical laws. This authority is not something alien to individuals since they are linked to the ethical order through a strong identification which Hegel says "is more like an identity than even the relation of faith or trust" (¶ 147). The knowledge of how the laws and institutions of society are binding on the will of individuals entails a "doctrine of duties." In duty the individual finds liberation both from dependence on mere natural impulse, which may or may not motivate ethical actions, and from indeterminate subjectivity which cannot produce a clear view of proper action. "In duty the individual acquires his substantive freedom" (¶ 149). In the performance of duty the individual exhibits virtue when the ethical order is reflected in his or her character, and when this is done by simple conformity with one's duties it is rectitude. When individuals are simply identified with the actual ethical order such that their ethical practices are habitual and second nature, ethical life appears in their general mode of conduct as custom (Sitten). Thus, the ethical order manifests its right and validity vis-à-vis individuals. In duty "the self-will of the individual vanishes together with his private conscience which had claimed independence and opposed itself to the ethical substance. For when his character is ethical, he recognizes as the end which moves him to act the universal which is itself unmoved but is disclosed in its specific determinations as rationality actualized. He knows that his own dignity and the whole stability of his particular ends are grounded in this same universal, and it is therein that he actually attains these" (¶ 152). However, this does not deny the right of subjectivity, i.e., the right of individuals to be satisfied in their particular pursuits and free activity; but this right is realized only in belonging to an objective ethical order. The "bond of duty" will be seen as a restriction on the particular individual only if the self-will of subjective freedom is considered in the abstract, apart from an ethical order (as is the case for both Abstract Right and Morality). "Hence, in this identity of the universal will with the particular will, right and duty coalesce, and by being in the ethical order a man has rights in so far as he has duties, and duties in so far as he has rights" (¶ 155).

http://www.iep.utm.edu/t/tolerati.htm#H5
Moral toleration emphasizes a moral commitment to the value of autonomy. While moral toleration is about relations between agents, political toleration is about restraint of political power. The modern liberal state is usually not thought to be a moral agent. Rather, the state is supposed to be something like a third party referee: it is not thought to be one of the parties engaged directly in the process of judgment and negation. Political toleration is thus an ideal that holds that the political referee should be impartial and unbiased. The term toleration has been used, since Locke, in this political context to describe a principle of state neutrality. The connection between moral and political toleration can be understood in terms of the history of the pre-modern era when the state was an agent—a monarch, for example—who had particular judgments and the power to negate. As the idea of the state has evolved since the 17th Century toward liberal democratic notions of self-government and civil rights, the notion of political toleration has evolved to mean something like state indifference. Political toleration is now thought to entail respect for privacy, separation of church and state, and a general respect for human rights.

The difficulty is that the idea of state neutrality can become paradoxical: a state that is neutral about everything will undermine its own existence.

"Each person has an equal right to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties which is compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for all."

http://www.iep.utm.edu/m/mead.htm
There are two models of consensus-conflict relation in Mead's analysis of social relations. These may be schematized as follows:
Intra-Group Consensus — Extra-Group Conflict
Intra-Group Conflict — Extra-Group Consensus
In the first model, the members of a given group are united in opposition to another group which is characterized as the "common enemy" of all members of the first group. Mead points out that the idea of a common enemy is central in much of human social organization and that it is frequently the major reference-point of intra-group consensus. For example, a great many human organizations derive their raison d'etre and their sense of solidarity from the existence (or putative existence) of the "enemy" (communists, atheists, infidels, fascist pigs, religious "fanatics," liberals, conservatives, or whatever). The generalized other of such an organization is formed in opposition to the generalized other of the enemy. The individual is "with" the members of her group and "against" members of the enemy group.

Sketching on Notes (not really)

So conscience is something that we apply to our daily lives in order to make decisions about what is "right" and "wrong." This varies from person to person and from a group of people to another. However, it needs to be guided, in a way. People need to be given choices to begin with, so that their conscience can have something to decide and therefore define their boundaries, I guess. A society, ideally, would provide these choices. Although there are certain deep, unshakable (mm not the word I wanted, but oh well) guidelines that I think all humans "start out" with, so to speak, like the feeling you get when you witness something "bad" happening. Guilt, apprehension, fear, embarressment... - I think we all have (or had at one time) these gut feelings, but unfortunately, a lot of time some or all of these gut feelings that are supposed to guide us are supressed or conditioned to be ignored. Especially now, we are so freely exposed to so many things considered (or used to be considered) taboo and at such a young age, too. Doesn't this dull whatever reacts to these things? The gut feelings are there and are supposed to be shocking so that they make us STOP and go, "wait a minute, woah. I don't think I'm supposed to feel this way." But these feelings are dulled because of overuse. Alright, interesting/obvious point I guess, but let's get back on track.
Is society in general causing this "dulling", or does it have more to do with the leaders (I realize that I failed to get back on track)? Well, aren't the leaders from the society and of the society? In America, the president has to have been born here to even be considered a candidate, in countries governed by the monarchy this also is true because obviously, the ruler is a descendant of a long line of people that have lived and died in that country, even in totalitarian governments the ruler that rises up is from the country or at least shares the citizens' sentiments (at least to begin with). I guess the exception in this case would be colonies owned by other countries, but those are often considered an extension of the leader's country or just fail because the natives revolt against that foreign leader... So I guess I'm coming back to the point that leaders must have the same general interests (personal, economical, political) as most of the population they lead. So is it really a question of "who has more power" over the society's conscience? Because ideally, the leader should have a similar conscience as the rest of the society, or else the civilization falls apart - even in Lord of the Flies, many of the boys had the same desires as Jack, no matter how "bad" they may have been. That's why he had so much power. Because they wanted to have fun, and he wanted to have fun, and then he made it happen for everyone. Yay. If Jack's tribe had had enough people like Samanderic who cringed at hunting humans and such, they probably wouldn't have "had to" join and probably could've stayed with Ralph. AND, even if a bunch of dissenters had joined, it still wouldn't have worked, because people get sick of doing things they hate after a while. They would've revolted against Jack. Unless I guess they changed... Okay, well that still would make sense, because then, the leader and followers have the same general desire!!! I feel like I'm on to something but at the same time feeling really lost, like way out in the middle of nowhere and jumping up and down, like "I get it! I get it!" and then, "wait, what? What is this place??" Hmm. Maybe I should outline.

Started out with:
Conscience is innate, but varies. It can also be changed.
Ended up:

• Leaders and their followers must have similar interests and therefore conscience.
• They usually do, unless it's a society tick-tocking, about to fall apart anyways.
• The conscience of each civilization is different, like different individuals want different things.
• The gut feelings people have (er... start out with) are all the same at first, but change according to experiences.

Geez I am SO CONFUSEd. I feel like I'm just putting certain meanings to words that don't actually mean that meaning and repeating the same things over and over again, like meaning meaning meaning. HELP- IS ANYONE THERE?

Notes on Conscience

CONSCIENCE. what is it??

Conscience and Other Virtues: From Bonaventure to MacIntyre. By Douglas C. Langston.
^ an article (or perhaps a book review) by Rory Fox

• Conscience itself, according to most scholastic writers, was to be thought of as ajudgement about the application of principles to concrete examples.
• Bonaventure: "Improving our reasoning processes or even our understanding of moral principleswould be just as likely to lead to development of greater sophistication in theapplication of conscience."
• For experience tohave value in shaping a conscience it must be validated by reasoning, otherwise it isliable to err and the only dynamism it will offer will be in terms of confusion andmisunderstanding.
• In general, scholastic writers viewed conscience as an intellectual, and to someextent volitional, process.
• With the reformation a very different model of conscience developed. i.e. Martin Luther (viewed conscience as a distinct faculty within human beings), Joseph Butler, Immanuel Kant
• It is this model that has come down to us in popular142 BOOK REVIEWSculture construing conscience as ‘a voice’ or ‘guide’ within us showing us the way toact and do what is right in each situation.
• having a relational existence in the nexus between reason, will and psychology. (...?!?)
• Notheory of conscience can afford to suggest that any and every feeling, view or reasonthat a person believes arises from their conscience is in fact a genuine andauthoritative utterance of conscience.
• conscience needs virtueethics in order to function properly. (Langston)
• Without virtue ethics conscience is blind, withvirtue ethics conscience has the wisdom of society on which to base its judgements andreasoning processes.

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/a/aristotl.htm#H6 (Aristotle on politics) (I think this would be a really good site for people doing prompt #2 - look at the Ethics section)

• The state in fact is no mere local union for the prevention of wrong doing, and the convenience of exchange. It is also no mere institution for the protection of goods and property. It is a genuine moral organization for advancing the development of humans.
• The classification of constitutions is based on the fact that government may be exercised either for the good of the governed or of the governing, and may be either concentrated in one person or shared by a few or by the many. There are thus three true forms of government: monarchy, aristocracy, and constitutional republic. The perverted forms of these are tyranny, oligarchy and democracy. The difference between the last two is not that democracy is a government of the many, and oligarchy of the few; instead, democracy is the state of the poor, and oligarchy of the rich. Considered in the abstract, these six states stand in the following order of preference: monarchy, aristocracy, constitutional republic, democracy, oligarchy, tyranny.
• But though with a perfect person monarchy would be the highest form of government, the absence of such people puts it practically out of consideration. Similarly, true aristocracy is hardly ever found in its uncorrupted form. It is in the constitution that the good person and the good citizen coincide. Ideal preferences aside, then, the constitutional republic is regarded as the best attainable form of government, especially as it secures that predominance of a large middle class, which is the chief basis of permanence in any state. With the spread of population, democracy is likely to become the general form of government.
• Law, for Aristotle, is the outward expression of the moral ideal without the bias of human feeling.
• Such education should not be left to private enterprise, but should be undertaken by the state. Indeed all true education is, as Plato saw, a training of our sympathies so that we may love and hate in a right manner.

Editorial - Leadership and Recent Controversies over Religious Liberty by Wallace L. Daniel

• The struggle for religious liberty and the rights of free consciencehad been a long, difficult, and momentous effort, whose history, Truettrecommended to his listeners, they should study. This struggle, at itscore, involved the clash between authoritarianism and individualism,between the demand for state conformity and the desire for"unrestricted religious liberty."
• He cited James Madison'sMemorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, that thegovernment must not "force a citizen to contribute three pence only ofhis property for the support of any one establishment" of a religiousorganization.26 The "payment of three pence" and freedom ofconscience, Justice Souter maintained, coufd not be separated, butwere part of the same constitutional principle.