Friday, March 12, 2004
My Skepticism --
[This is it, the big one.]
Aristotle defined man as the "rational animal", thereby making, in his schema of things, rationality the essence of humanity. The less rational a person is, the more their actions are guided by irrational processes, and the less "human" this person. This is a powerful idea with wide-ranging consequences. Not only does it section off all emotionality into a second class status, but it also makes the requirement that all beliefs be "proved" or "justified" rationally to one extent or the other.
The idea that people are wholly, or even mostly, guided by reason is patently false.
People do things for a whole host of reasons psychological, cultural, instinctual, historical, maybe even completely random. However, the legacy of man the rational animal says that we have to find rational explanations for human beliefs and beahavior. If one person believes "A" is true, and another "B", the way we decide which person is correct is by their ability to rationally support their position. The argument that is more persuasive rationally is deemed to be more "right" than the less rational.
Two examples:
1) Gay marriage.
People against it make different kinds of arguments. One is to say, "God prohibits this." This is an appeal to authority -- the authorty being God's infinite wisdom and knowledge over all things. Therefore, what He says in the Bible must be true. Problems: there are things in the Bible which we no longer believe to be actually true, and the existence of God cannot be proven. As a rational argument, not very good. The other argument is that gay marriage will hurt society. This is a utilitarian argument -- the greatest happiness to the most people says that a small group, gays, should not be allowed to hurt a much larger group, non-gays. Problems: dubious at best, and contrary to the American belief in individual liberty and minority rights. When I protest on the street corner, this is an annoyance to a lot of people and benefits only me, but I still have that right because we as a culture believe that free speech is such an important human right that this trumps the majority's displeasure.
2) Slavery.
Today slavery is universally regarded as wrong. 150 years ago, it was clearly a hotly debated moral topic.
Who is more right in this? Who's opinion is true?
Well anyone who favors slavery is clearly wrong.
Why?
Because it is wrong to own another person.
Okay, that sounds like the same thing as saying that slavery is wrong. Why is it wrong to own a person?
Because we all have the same right to live freely.
Why?
We all have God given rights that nobody can take away and that are sacrosanct against all other considerations.
Why? What's your proof? How do you know that God doesn't prefer some people over others? Or in the abscence of God, what is your proof that all people are equal?
Okay, I won't go on, but my point is that at it's heart, any moral argument does not rest on facts of the 2 + 2 = 4 or scientifically reproducable variety, but on beliefs or assertions that presuppose the arguments and make them valid. You must already take as true that it is wrong to hold another in bondage as a general principle to argue that it is wrong in this case to do so -- otherwise your argument doesn't work.
And it is these beliefs that ground the political and moral structures that we have built over the millennia and hold so dear. Why democracy instead of totalitarianism? Because we say so. You can say that in a democracy more people are likely to be happy, but then: Why is it important that people be happy? Again, because we say so.
Moral or political arguments are only intelligible in the context of the belief system of the time.
Our arguments against slavery would have made no sense in ancient Rome -- were they less "rational" than we are?
And in a thousand years, what will people say of the gay marriage "debate"? Will what seemed so contentious today be "common sense" then?
My final point. Reason tells us that arguments go like this: one considers that evidence, one looks at the general principles, logic dictates the answer. This is a hard job, but in theory possible. I say no. In real life, people start with the answer, then tailor their evidence and create their own principles to justify it. Liberals have liberal principles of civil rights that are equally as subjective as a fundametalist Christian's belief in God.
Both sides of the demogogical divide fear moral subjectivism because it throws dirty doubt over the snowy white veracity of what they belief so strongly to be true. They should know that their perception of being right is only a psychological one, and that one's fervor in making an argument does not make it any more (or less) true.
SO, even though I engage in moral arguments myself, and often get pretty heated about them, I know that the human condition is such that the truth is inaccessible to us, except perhaps on death. We are like blind men arguing with other blind men about what the light looks like -- a light we cannot possibly see.
That's my skepticism.
|
[This is it, the big one.]
Aristotle defined man as the "rational animal", thereby making, in his schema of things, rationality the essence of humanity. The less rational a person is, the more their actions are guided by irrational processes, and the less "human" this person. This is a powerful idea with wide-ranging consequences. Not only does it section off all emotionality into a second class status, but it also makes the requirement that all beliefs be "proved" or "justified" rationally to one extent or the other.
The idea that people are wholly, or even mostly, guided by reason is patently false.
People do things for a whole host of reasons psychological, cultural, instinctual, historical, maybe even completely random. However, the legacy of man the rational animal says that we have to find rational explanations for human beliefs and beahavior. If one person believes "A" is true, and another "B", the way we decide which person is correct is by their ability to rationally support their position. The argument that is more persuasive rationally is deemed to be more "right" than the less rational.
Two examples:
1) Gay marriage.
People against it make different kinds of arguments. One is to say, "God prohibits this." This is an appeal to authority -- the authorty being God's infinite wisdom and knowledge over all things. Therefore, what He says in the Bible must be true. Problems: there are things in the Bible which we no longer believe to be actually true, and the existence of God cannot be proven. As a rational argument, not very good. The other argument is that gay marriage will hurt society. This is a utilitarian argument -- the greatest happiness to the most people says that a small group, gays, should not be allowed to hurt a much larger group, non-gays. Problems: dubious at best, and contrary to the American belief in individual liberty and minority rights. When I protest on the street corner, this is an annoyance to a lot of people and benefits only me, but I still have that right because we as a culture believe that free speech is such an important human right that this trumps the majority's displeasure.
2) Slavery.
Today slavery is universally regarded as wrong. 150 years ago, it was clearly a hotly debated moral topic.
Who is more right in this? Who's opinion is true?
Well anyone who favors slavery is clearly wrong.
Why?
Because it is wrong to own another person.
Okay, that sounds like the same thing as saying that slavery is wrong. Why is it wrong to own a person?
Because we all have the same right to live freely.
Why?
We all have God given rights that nobody can take away and that are sacrosanct against all other considerations.
Why? What's your proof? How do you know that God doesn't prefer some people over others? Or in the abscence of God, what is your proof that all people are equal?
Okay, I won't go on, but my point is that at it's heart, any moral argument does not rest on facts of the 2 + 2 = 4 or scientifically reproducable variety, but on beliefs or assertions that presuppose the arguments and make them valid. You must already take as true that it is wrong to hold another in bondage as a general principle to argue that it is wrong in this case to do so -- otherwise your argument doesn't work.
And it is these beliefs that ground the political and moral structures that we have built over the millennia and hold so dear. Why democracy instead of totalitarianism? Because we say so. You can say that in a democracy more people are likely to be happy, but then: Why is it important that people be happy? Again, because we say so.
Moral or political arguments are only intelligible in the context of the belief system of the time.
Our arguments against slavery would have made no sense in ancient Rome -- were they less "rational" than we are?
And in a thousand years, what will people say of the gay marriage "debate"? Will what seemed so contentious today be "common sense" then?
My final point. Reason tells us that arguments go like this: one considers that evidence, one looks at the general principles, logic dictates the answer. This is a hard job, but in theory possible. I say no. In real life, people start with the answer, then tailor their evidence and create their own principles to justify it. Liberals have liberal principles of civil rights that are equally as subjective as a fundametalist Christian's belief in God.
Both sides of the demogogical divide fear moral subjectivism because it throws dirty doubt over the snowy white veracity of what they belief so strongly to be true. They should know that their perception of being right is only a psychological one, and that one's fervor in making an argument does not make it any more (or less) true.
SO, even though I engage in moral arguments myself, and often get pretty heated about them, I know that the human condition is such that the truth is inaccessible to us, except perhaps on death. We are like blind men arguing with other blind men about what the light looks like -- a light we cannot possibly see.
That's my skepticism.
|
