Is there any philosophical justification that can be provided for valuing the life, needs and thoughts of someone from your own community(distant family, distant friends, religion, ethnicity, race, etc.) over that of others?
Simple gratitude is problematic since most of such examples involve people who’ve never done anything for us so it must be something better than that. Philosophers have come up with extremely robust ethical systems but this presents a problem. If you’re confused, this is the problem
"A truly virtuous man would rush to save the life of a complete stranger just as willingly as his closest friend. It follows therefore that a truly virtuous man would have no friends"
What if both of them were drowning at the same time with only enough time to save one? What would you do? Flip a coin?
Many philosophers have struggled to come up with ethical systems that justify attaching more importance to some people over others(people from our community). But whenever we do that, it always leads to bad results – a closing off of society and a lessening of humanity – since this carries with it all sorts off additional quandries. Such as us having to then also privilege/trust our communities opinions and beliefs over others. And we all know where that leads…….
We have strong philosophical(unreligious) ethical systems. But people instinctively believe that ‘their’ people should be given preference over others(I think the Buddha also spoke about this issue as well). But philosophers, as far as I’m aware, haven’t yet managed to justify such favoritism in a proper ethical system that doesn’t lead to moral ambiguity.
Or have they? Do you know of some ideas that have? Or have some of your own? Please share.
So far the Philosophy section hasn’t given me any answers. That’s why I’ve put it up here. Nearest kinda section I could find. Plus this section is always ultra-active………
Also, I’m looking for a philosophical theory of ethics. Not a biological explanation of where this tendency of ours came from. That I already know, thank you.
@El Americano: That is true. However, that would work even better(utility maximised) if we looked out for all fellow human beings equally, rather than choose to privilege some(like fellow citizens). Communitarianism would have us privilege those we can identify with. This goes against utility maximisation when loyalties collide, as often they do. If loyalty were universalised, then the cause of utility maximisation would be greatly benefitted. Thus, this seems to argue against communitarianism, which is exactly my problem. I’ve been unable to justify it myself so far. My thanks for the effort, though.
Communitarianism can be said to be similar to nationalism. Nationalism isn’t only a sense of pride in one’s nation, it’s also a utilitarian bond that a people have. This bond is essential of communication, cooperation, and the over all health of a society. In other words, it propagates prosperity for a nation. So with communitarianism, it can be said that it is a utilitarian function of a society. Nietzsche would put such notions down saying that man intrinsically gravitates towards his weakness and thus protects himself by bonding with the philosophy of, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." In many respects he is correct, but as Kant would states, it’s only a rational by product of our solution oriented capabilities. In short, there is a philosophical justification for communitarianism, which is a utilitarian feature. If we all look out for each other, then when the time comes one might look out for us in our time of need, and if we all do this then the society as a whole will prosper which helps to fend against larger enemies and issues.
Additional Details
I see your point and failed to understand what you were actually asking. I agree with the fact that humans as whole would benefit from a holistically humanitarian approach however, we all know that’s not going to happen soon. In the world of make believe where things are perfect, there would be no famine, wars, restricting borders or even a currency system. We are far, far, far, from reaching any one of those goals. Communitarianism is extremely limited, short sighted, and fallible . . . just as humans are. It’s obviously one of our own little creations.
So ultimately, can it be justified as an ultimate good for the overall good of humanity? NO! Can be it be seen as a practical tool in an extremely imperfect world? YES!
