Monday, March 20, 2006
Burdensome
Having to explain yourself is quite a burden -- it sucks. So we take shortcuts. I'm totally cool with this, because realizing the futility of explanation is a liberating experience.
Quick example -- killing is wrong. OK, innocuous enough.
Q: Why?
A: Because all human life has value.
Oh, isn't that nice?
Q: Why does all human life have value?
A: Ummm ... because it does.
[Or, if you're a religious person, the answer is because God says so. The ability of religion to put an end to this pointless questioning is one of its strongest features.]
There are many ethical beliefs and assumptions at work even in the simple -- and universally acknowledged -- moral command "Thou shalt not kill."
The exceptions to the rule show that this supposedly categorical command is in fact compose of smaller working parts -- e.g. killing in self defense is OK, killing in war is OK, killing heinous criminals is OK. So the actual moral command is not "Thou shalt not kill," but rather something more complicated like, "Thou shalt not end another person's life unless the following conditions are met ..."
The old thing about how stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving family is OK is another example of the difficulty in explaining the rationale behind even the simplest moral no-nos.
So I'm big on the shortcut -- Q: Why is X wrong? A: Just cuz.
The entire edifice of human society as we know it is built on the ability of individual people to accept the shortcut answer to ethical questions. Even more important than the ability to do so is the readiness with which it is done -- people really seem to enjoy latching onto absolutes, even when the fact that their absolutes differ fundamentally from other people's absolutes is pretty strong evidence that the perception of moral "absolutes" is just that, a perception, and not reality.
If 50% of people say that something is wrong and 50% say that it's not, who's right? Does the fact that it's 70-30 make a difference? What about 99-1?
How about when 5 people out of 300 million say something's right?
Whatever.
|
Quick example -- killing is wrong. OK, innocuous enough.
Q: Why?
A: Because all human life has value.
Oh, isn't that nice?
Q: Why does all human life have value?
A: Ummm ... because it does.
[Or, if you're a religious person, the answer is because God says so. The ability of religion to put an end to this pointless questioning is one of its strongest features.]
There are many ethical beliefs and assumptions at work even in the simple -- and universally acknowledged -- moral command "Thou shalt not kill."
The exceptions to the rule show that this supposedly categorical command is in fact compose of smaller working parts -- e.g. killing in self defense is OK, killing in war is OK, killing heinous criminals is OK. So the actual moral command is not "Thou shalt not kill," but rather something more complicated like, "Thou shalt not end another person's life unless the following conditions are met ..."
The old thing about how stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving family is OK is another example of the difficulty in explaining the rationale behind even the simplest moral no-nos.
So I'm big on the shortcut -- Q: Why is X wrong? A: Just cuz.
The entire edifice of human society as we know it is built on the ability of individual people to accept the shortcut answer to ethical questions. Even more important than the ability to do so is the readiness with which it is done -- people really seem to enjoy latching onto absolutes, even when the fact that their absolutes differ fundamentally from other people's absolutes is pretty strong evidence that the perception of moral "absolutes" is just that, a perception, and not reality.
If 50% of people say that something is wrong and 50% say that it's not, who's right? Does the fact that it's 70-30 make a difference? What about 99-1?
How about when 5 people out of 300 million say something's right?
Whatever.
|
