The Foundation Doctrines
Descartes's famous proclamation, "Cogito, ergo sum"—"I think, therefore I am"—was borne of a reductionist process by which Descartes hoped to narrow all knowledge down to that of which he could be absolutely certain. For him, this was the conclusion, the absolute base at which he could pinpoint the only information he could not doubt. For us, this will be the starting point. We will, of course, have to accept on faith that we are not being possessed by an evil demon, having our brain placed in a jar or undergoing any other sort of fundamental deceit of basic reality. Consideration of such possibilities is only useful insofar as it could relate to us changing such circumstances (either by knowing, and thus making defunct, these forces or by somehow escaping such deceit -- which is impossible in the purest forms of this thought experiment), so once we have accepted that we exist as a real, conscious being, it naturally follows that we should accept the sensory information our real mind is providing us with. We effectively realize that Berkeley's subjective idealism is functionally no different from realism. From here, proving the reality of the world around us is no longer difficult, and we can confidently assume the reality of both ourselves and those around us.
Following the acceptance that we are real beings in a real world, the prime concern becomes ethics. Some would argue that epistemology cannot be forgotten yet, as the question of God's existence looms over any consideration of ethics. This is true, as belief in God will inevitably impact ethics, since any God who created the universe and commands His people must be listened to, for a believer. To this extent, however, all ethical considerations are still rational and empirical as far as one accepts the reality of this God. The diverging ethical conclusions of a theist and an atheist will be weighed according to the strength of each's stance on a deity, and cannot be naively weighed together without this component being the prime contention.
There are some who argue that morality cannot exist without God, for, they claim, morality can only exist if it is objective, and morality can only be objective if a higher knowledge to the universe is dictating it. Further, they allege that if God does not exist and morality does not exist, human 'morality' is based on nothing more than evolutionary circumstance, which, lacking objective truth, is not sufficient reason for a human being to continue to bind himself to morality. Those who attempt to argue that this chain of reasoning provides proof of God's existence on the basis that as a species we do still follow moral codes are clearly ignorant to the strength of evolutionary impulses and instinct. Those who claim that, regardless of the unknown actual reality of God's existence, we must choose to believe in God in order to avoid nihilism are also missing the point; as we've established, all knowledge is based in believing the self, and this includes belief in God. It follows that an atheist who understands morality to have come from a Darwinian process designed to further the existence of the human race has just as much reason to believe his morality as the theist who understands moral truths as being given to man by God. While for the theist, morality rests on God, belief in God still requires the individual to believe himself that God exists. For the atheist, the intermediary is simply removed, resulting in the individual believing himself that he and his moral impulses are real, and, as part of accepting his own reality, accepts his morality as universally true, if not 'objective' in a sense of coming from outside of the individual. But for the atheist, no such pretense of objectivity is necessary, for all reality is understood through the subjective. He can say, "I am a thinking being, and thus a real being. I am experiencing the world around me, which I can assume to be true. I have ethical impulses, which I likewise assume to be true. So what if I know where these come from (i.e. evolution)? I know where my existence comes from, but that doesn't make me any less real."
Moving on, we must consider ethics in the social realm. To think and therefore exist, we naturally have desires, and, once refined by reason (including its form that is faith), aims. Logically, the most effective way to pursue our aims is to exist in a world where others hinder our aims as little as possible. This is the essence of the 'Golden Rule': Do unto others as you would have them do to you! This rule generally works when practiced because we are all quite similar beings. If I choose to take one action in a situation, it is likely that millions—even billions—of others would take the same action in the same situation. Applied more rigidly, this general principle is the backbone of Kant's 'Categorical Imperative': Only act as if every action should become a universal law! Although flawed as a specific maxim, the premise behind this categorical imperative is in fact utilitarian in nature. It only works because if you follow it, others will as well, and in so doing will better allow for everyone's aims to be pursued. In the scenario in which an act utilitarian would violate a universal law, the deontologist follows it, knowing that the utility lost in the instant is outweighed by utility gained from upholding the universal law. It is in fact difficult to make ethical arguments that are not utilitarian in some way, even if separated by several degrees. Nozick's 'Utility Monster' only works because we are unable to conceive of a being/process that can gain/provide so much utility -- consider the facts that we weigh the utility lost in sacrificing one as almost always a much larger loss than the pleasure that is to be gained, and that we instinctively place the highest utility on human life. A human utility monster is made impossible by the fact that no human can gain so much pleasure as the concept demands, and a non-human utility monster is impossible because we, as instinct-driven humans, would never ascribe so much utility to a being who is not human. With these in mind, the thought experiment is revealed to be wholly inconceivable, and devoid of any practical relevance beyond mocking the most base, narrow-minded strain of utilitarianism—which is typically found in people who identify with the label of 'utilitarianism'. The ultimate lesson here is that attempting to ascribe faux-objective mathematical measures of 'utility' to the world is folly, but so is deluding oneself into thinking ethics can be determined without a degree of such a mindset present at a much more abstract level.
In terms of how society should be organized, the principle that follows from the Golden Rule (and potentially a less rigid understanding of the categorical imperative) is Rawls's 'Veil of Ignorance': When constructing a society, imagine that you might randomly be born into any area within it! This would appear to be a bolder step than following the aforementioned maxims, as, while those will benefit the individual in his own life, this doctrine appears to benefit only those who come after you. And this is true to an extent, but it still does not permit us to finally fall to egoism. For we are still doing unto others—the coming generations—what we (would have) liked done unto us by following this principle. Despite the evolutionary impulse of self-preservation still being relevant here, this is more far-removed from one's own life than the simple previous guidelines on treating others. For this reason, the veil of ignorance is far easier to neglect than the Golden Rule in its simplest form, and has repeatedly and often-continuously been so throughout history. That being said, it is still the exact same principle at play, which is why Nietzsche is correct in his claim that, "The democratic movement is the heir to Christianity" (Nietzsche ignores the fact that the Christian principle I have repeatedly stressed here is in fact a rational, empirical maxim as well). For it is not difficult to explain how liberal democracy is the result of taking the veil of ignorance into account -- especially given that Rawls and his theories (and giving words to unnamed concepts) emerged from liberal democracy. Of course, the most memorable predecessor to Rawls's conception is Jefferson's statement in the Declaration of Independence, "All men are created equal." Fittingly, through basing itself in creation, this proclamation recognizes that its conclusion is rooted in existence itself.
Following the acceptance that we are real beings in a real world, the prime concern becomes ethics. Some would argue that epistemology cannot be forgotten yet, as the question of God's existence looms over any consideration of ethics. This is true, as belief in God will inevitably impact ethics, since any God who created the universe and commands His people must be listened to, for a believer. To this extent, however, all ethical considerations are still rational and empirical as far as one accepts the reality of this God. The diverging ethical conclusions of a theist and an atheist will be weighed according to the strength of each's stance on a deity, and cannot be naively weighed together without this component being the prime contention.
There are some who argue that morality cannot exist without God, for, they claim, morality can only exist if it is objective, and morality can only be objective if a higher knowledge to the universe is dictating it. Further, they allege that if God does not exist and morality does not exist, human 'morality' is based on nothing more than evolutionary circumstance, which, lacking objective truth, is not sufficient reason for a human being to continue to bind himself to morality. Those who attempt to argue that this chain of reasoning provides proof of God's existence on the basis that as a species we do still follow moral codes are clearly ignorant to the strength of evolutionary impulses and instinct. Those who claim that, regardless of the unknown actual reality of God's existence, we must choose to believe in God in order to avoid nihilism are also missing the point; as we've established, all knowledge is based in believing the self, and this includes belief in God. It follows that an atheist who understands morality to have come from a Darwinian process designed to further the existence of the human race has just as much reason to believe his morality as the theist who understands moral truths as being given to man by God. While for the theist, morality rests on God, belief in God still requires the individual to believe himself that God exists. For the atheist, the intermediary is simply removed, resulting in the individual believing himself that he and his moral impulses are real, and, as part of accepting his own reality, accepts his morality as universally true, if not 'objective' in a sense of coming from outside of the individual. But for the atheist, no such pretense of objectivity is necessary, for all reality is understood through the subjective. He can say, "I am a thinking being, and thus a real being. I am experiencing the world around me, which I can assume to be true. I have ethical impulses, which I likewise assume to be true. So what if I know where these come from (i.e. evolution)? I know where my existence comes from, but that doesn't make me any less real."
Moving on, we must consider ethics in the social realm. To think and therefore exist, we naturally have desires, and, once refined by reason (including its form that is faith), aims. Logically, the most effective way to pursue our aims is to exist in a world where others hinder our aims as little as possible. This is the essence of the 'Golden Rule': Do unto others as you would have them do to you! This rule generally works when practiced because we are all quite similar beings. If I choose to take one action in a situation, it is likely that millions—even billions—of others would take the same action in the same situation. Applied more rigidly, this general principle is the backbone of Kant's 'Categorical Imperative': Only act as if every action should become a universal law! Although flawed as a specific maxim, the premise behind this categorical imperative is in fact utilitarian in nature. It only works because if you follow it, others will as well, and in so doing will better allow for everyone's aims to be pursued. In the scenario in which an act utilitarian would violate a universal law, the deontologist follows it, knowing that the utility lost in the instant is outweighed by utility gained from upholding the universal law. It is in fact difficult to make ethical arguments that are not utilitarian in some way, even if separated by several degrees. Nozick's 'Utility Monster' only works because we are unable to conceive of a being/process that can gain/provide so much utility -- consider the facts that we weigh the utility lost in sacrificing one as almost always a much larger loss than the pleasure that is to be gained, and that we instinctively place the highest utility on human life. A human utility monster is made impossible by the fact that no human can gain so much pleasure as the concept demands, and a non-human utility monster is impossible because we, as instinct-driven humans, would never ascribe so much utility to a being who is not human. With these in mind, the thought experiment is revealed to be wholly inconceivable, and devoid of any practical relevance beyond mocking the most base, narrow-minded strain of utilitarianism—which is typically found in people who identify with the label of 'utilitarianism'. The ultimate lesson here is that attempting to ascribe faux-objective mathematical measures of 'utility' to the world is folly, but so is deluding oneself into thinking ethics can be determined without a degree of such a mindset present at a much more abstract level.
In terms of how society should be organized, the principle that follows from the Golden Rule (and potentially a less rigid understanding of the categorical imperative) is Rawls's 'Veil of Ignorance': When constructing a society, imagine that you might randomly be born into any area within it! This would appear to be a bolder step than following the aforementioned maxims, as, while those will benefit the individual in his own life, this doctrine appears to benefit only those who come after you. And this is true to an extent, but it still does not permit us to finally fall to egoism. For we are still doing unto others—the coming generations—what we (would have) liked done unto us by following this principle. Despite the evolutionary impulse of self-preservation still being relevant here, this is more far-removed from one's own life than the simple previous guidelines on treating others. For this reason, the veil of ignorance is far easier to neglect than the Golden Rule in its simplest form, and has repeatedly and often-continuously been so throughout history. That being said, it is still the exact same principle at play, which is why Nietzsche is correct in his claim that, "The democratic movement is the heir to Christianity" (Nietzsche ignores the fact that the Christian principle I have repeatedly stressed here is in fact a rational, empirical maxim as well). For it is not difficult to explain how liberal democracy is the result of taking the veil of ignorance into account -- especially given that Rawls and his theories (and giving words to unnamed concepts) emerged from liberal democracy. Of course, the most memorable predecessor to Rawls's conception is Jefferson's statement in the Declaration of Independence, "All men are created equal." Fittingly, through basing itself in creation, this proclamation recognizes that its conclusion is rooted in existence itself.
Comments
Post a Comment