If human rights are universal, then there has to be a universal justification for them — they have to be equally valid no matter which society you come from. What is this justification? John Locke, who is largely responsible for human rights talk, thought that they came from God. The writers of the American Constitution agreed with him. [It has been argued that we still accept universal human rights even though we have done away with the theological underpinning for them and have not found a replacement for it.]
Immanuel Kant thought that they come from reason, via the Categorical Imperative. It is common nowadays to claim that they come from the nature of a human being, though the details of how they so arise differ between many authors. Is it merely the concept of a human (or more commonly, a person) — and if so, which features of that concept? Is it our rationality (Kant), our special status granted by God (Locke), our immersion in community, our ability to empathize, our ability to have moral views, or something else?
If you believe that morality is relative — that what's right for me (or for us) may not be right for you, then it is difficult to see how you can support universal human rights at all. One account of rights is that they are granted by governments or rulers. If this is the case, then they differ from one society to another, and cannot then be universal.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Should We Obey Immoral Laws?
Gandhi came to grips with this question. Martin Luther King grapples with it in his ‘Letter from Birmingham Jail.’ My view, like King's, is that there are certain laws which are inherently immoral, and that therefore (provided the immorality is serious enough) I am morally bound to disobey them.
The difficult philosophical question is what grounds I have for claiming that a law is inherently immoral. King had an answer to that one — an immoral law is one that is at odds with God's Law. However, there are serious problems with basing morality on God's Law, as Plato pointed out in the Euthyphro. Does God promulgate His law because it is right (in which case what makes it right is something other than God's word), or is anything that God endorses therefore right — even the murder of innocent children (Abraham and Isaac)?
Of course, many answers have been advanced as to how we can tell what is inherently moral or immoral, while others have argued that there are no inherently moral truths — that morality is relative. The latter view makes civil disobedience very problematical, but I don't hold it.
The difficult philosophical question is what grounds I have for claiming that a law is inherently immoral. King had an answer to that one — an immoral law is one that is at odds with God's Law. However, there are serious problems with basing morality on God's Law, as Plato pointed out in the Euthyphro. Does God promulgate His law because it is right (in which case what makes it right is something other than God's word), or is anything that God endorses therefore right — even the murder of innocent children (Abraham and Isaac)?
Of course, many answers have been advanced as to how we can tell what is inherently moral or immoral, while others have argued that there are no inherently moral truths — that morality is relative. The latter view makes civil disobedience very problematical, but I don't hold it.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Why Do We Exist?
Each of us, at some time in our lives, is brought face to face with the contingency of our own unique existence. If your parents had not met, you would not have existed. Neither of them would have existed if their parents had not met, and so on. You are a fluke, and so am I. Your existence is a gigantic improbability and so is mine.
Of course, if neither of us existed, neither of us would be asking the question. But that is not an adequate answer.
If you believe in God, then here's a way to make sense of the fact that someone named ‘Kim’ exists. God is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good. In creating the universe, God knew the precise date that Kim would be born, and, being all-good, his decision to create a universe in which Kim would exist was motivated by the thought that, taking everything into account, a universe containing Kim was better than a universe without Kim.
The trouble is, that doesn't answer the question. The question that still grips me, and the question that ought to grip you is, ‘Why did I have to be in the universe?” One can say the same thing about Kevin as I have said about Kim. God saw the possibilities that each of these two individuals represented and approved. Yet still I am gripped by the question, ‘Why did I have to be Kevin?’ And similarly, you ought to be gripped by the question, ‘Why did I have to be [insert your name]?’ I cannot ask your question and you cannot ask mine. It is a question that each human being can only ask about themselves and no-one else.
It is not as if it would make any sense to imagine that I might have been someone else other than Kevin. As the eighteenth century philosopher Leibniz famously commented, “To imagine myself being Descartes is to imagine myself not existing and Descartes being in my place.” If all your thoughts, feelings and experiences are replaced by Descartes’ thoughts, feelings and experiences then there is nothing left of 'you' to think the thought: 'Now I know what it is like to be Descartes!'
So what we are left with is a mystery, the mystery of I. There is no answer from science. There is no answer from theology. The only contribution that philosophy has to make is to point out that the real problem is prior to the question 'Why...?'. For no philosophical theory, that I know of, has succeeded in explaining how there can be such a thing as the sheer fact that I exist.
Of course, if neither of us existed, neither of us would be asking the question. But that is not an adequate answer.
If you believe in God, then here's a way to make sense of the fact that someone named ‘Kim’ exists. God is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good. In creating the universe, God knew the precise date that Kim would be born, and, being all-good, his decision to create a universe in which Kim would exist was motivated by the thought that, taking everything into account, a universe containing Kim was better than a universe without Kim.
The trouble is, that doesn't answer the question. The question that still grips me, and the question that ought to grip you is, ‘Why did I have to be in the universe?” One can say the same thing about Kevin as I have said about Kim. God saw the possibilities that each of these two individuals represented and approved. Yet still I am gripped by the question, ‘Why did I have to be Kevin?’ And similarly, you ought to be gripped by the question, ‘Why did I have to be [insert your name]?’ I cannot ask your question and you cannot ask mine. It is a question that each human being can only ask about themselves and no-one else.
It is not as if it would make any sense to imagine that I might have been someone else other than Kevin. As the eighteenth century philosopher Leibniz famously commented, “To imagine myself being Descartes is to imagine myself not existing and Descartes being in my place.” If all your thoughts, feelings and experiences are replaced by Descartes’ thoughts, feelings and experiences then there is nothing left of 'you' to think the thought: 'Now I know what it is like to be Descartes!'
So what we are left with is a mystery, the mystery of I. There is no answer from science. There is no answer from theology. The only contribution that philosophy has to make is to point out that the real problem is prior to the question 'Why...?'. For no philosophical theory, that I know of, has succeeded in explaining how there can be such a thing as the sheer fact that I exist.
Friday, April 1, 2011
How Can Good Exist Without Evil?
What are we implying? Is it that good cannot be seen to exist without the contrast of evil? Or that good only exists to destroy evil? Whichever is implied we are still left with a teasing dilemma. If God is the creator of the universe, why allow evil into the creation in the first place? Or could it be that God did not have all his own way, working as the creator of good alongside the creator of evil? Some religious people believe in the existence of a very strong Devil.
There is no doubt that the battle between good and evil seems to have been going on since the world began, but in a “natural” world a caring God seems to take second place. However, as the question implies, it would appear that the evil we see round about us stimulates the concept that there must be some power for good to which an appeal can be made. There is also the notion at the root of religion that the world is the creation of a 'good' power, but, somehow, evil has managed to gain access. Some claim that a mistake was made initially by God when he allowed humans to have a certain amount of freewill.
Then there is the question of evil itself, with all its variable concepts. Many regard the perceived cruelty of nature itself to be evil: what is regarded by many as a natural and necessary food chain to maintain the balance of nature, is seen by others to be an unnecessary form of cruelty which extrapolates to evil. Here is another dilemma: take the simple case of a domestic cat coming in from the garden with a dead bird in its mouth; the owner of the cat gives the animal a good beating. Which action can be interpreted as evil, the action of the cat in killing the bird, or the action of the owner in beating the cat, or both? Some will say that a natural action, though cruel, cannot be evil, but an action punishing natural activity is both cruel and evil. So, we are presented yet again with a complicated problem regarding God. If God is the creator of nature, surely He could have presented us with a kinder regime of nature. How could a loving God confront us with such cruelty?
Separate from nature are the choices regarded as evil, or which lead to evil, made by humans themselves. A choice to murder, rob, deceive, inflict pain, betray, hate, etc. Pertinent to our question, it might appear that God is somehow responsible for the evil which the question suggests He cannot live without. However, the existence of God depends on factors other than evil, the general claim is that the universe must have a creator, and most are content to believe that this must be God. Regarding God as the creator means that he exists whether or not evil is present. Perhaps the “Grand Design” must include evil to make it work properly. Supporters of God would not argue with this seeing that their apology rests on the premise that God knows best. As Kant implied, our minds are not constructed to go beyond a certain level of knowledge, i.e. there are things which will remain outside the powers of human understanding.
How many times have we looked back at something evil and destructive in our lives, only to find that if it had not happened the subsequent good arising from it would have been denied us? There are so many things in our lives where good has had to be preceded by bad.
There is no doubt that the battle between good and evil seems to have been going on since the world began, but in a “natural” world a caring God seems to take second place. However, as the question implies, it would appear that the evil we see round about us stimulates the concept that there must be some power for good to which an appeal can be made. There is also the notion at the root of religion that the world is the creation of a 'good' power, but, somehow, evil has managed to gain access. Some claim that a mistake was made initially by God when he allowed humans to have a certain amount of freewill.
Then there is the question of evil itself, with all its variable concepts. Many regard the perceived cruelty of nature itself to be evil: what is regarded by many as a natural and necessary food chain to maintain the balance of nature, is seen by others to be an unnecessary form of cruelty which extrapolates to evil. Here is another dilemma: take the simple case of a domestic cat coming in from the garden with a dead bird in its mouth; the owner of the cat gives the animal a good beating. Which action can be interpreted as evil, the action of the cat in killing the bird, or the action of the owner in beating the cat, or both? Some will say that a natural action, though cruel, cannot be evil, but an action punishing natural activity is both cruel and evil. So, we are presented yet again with a complicated problem regarding God. If God is the creator of nature, surely He could have presented us with a kinder regime of nature. How could a loving God confront us with such cruelty?
Separate from nature are the choices regarded as evil, or which lead to evil, made by humans themselves. A choice to murder, rob, deceive, inflict pain, betray, hate, etc. Pertinent to our question, it might appear that God is somehow responsible for the evil which the question suggests He cannot live without. However, the existence of God depends on factors other than evil, the general claim is that the universe must have a creator, and most are content to believe that this must be God. Regarding God as the creator means that he exists whether or not evil is present. Perhaps the “Grand Design” must include evil to make it work properly. Supporters of God would not argue with this seeing that their apology rests on the premise that God knows best. As Kant implied, our minds are not constructed to go beyond a certain level of knowledge, i.e. there are things which will remain outside the powers of human understanding.
How many times have we looked back at something evil and destructive in our lives, only to find that if it had not happened the subsequent good arising from it would have been denied us? There are so many things in our lives where good has had to be preceded by bad.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Should We Let a White Supremacy Group March in a Black Neighborhood?
John Stuart Mill would say that it is okay for white supremacists to march in a black neighborhood, so long as they do not harm those living in the area, or encourage others to harm them. And so long as they do not prevent those living in the neighborhood from expressing their own opinion or marching themselves. This is because Mill argues that we are free to do what we want providing what we do does not harm others. Mill also argues that mere offense or distaste does not constitute harm, so the white supremacists would be allowed, and perhaps even encouraged by Mill to march.
Now there are problems for Mill in saying just what it means to harm someone, or the limits of encouragement that is allowable, but generally most people would perhaps agree with his views. There are however opponents that would disagree with Mill. I think we can identify three major types: one that is call 'free speech hypocrites', a second which could be called 'free speech humanitarians'. Both of these work within Mill’s framework and disagree with the details of Mill's theory. But a third opponent is one who would reject entirely what Mill has to say about liberty.
Free speech hypocrites are all those like the white supremacists, who argue the case for freedom of speech as a constitutional right under law, so that they can march, but only appeal to the value of free speech in order to actively deny such rights to others, namely those living in the black neighborhood. Such opponents would not accept the consequence of Mill's view that everyone has the freedom to do what they want. They would not want others to be free to march against them.
The second group agrees with Mill that liberty is a good thing and free speech should be permitted, but disagree with Mill that whatever its content, free speech does no harm. They would argue that racism, homophobia, fascism, and other prejudiced beliefs are harmful and should be prevented from being freely expressed. The problem here is that no matter what anyone says it will offend someone; should we therefore ban all differing opinion, or offensive behavior?
The third opponent does not agree with Mill that free speech or individual liberty is necessarily a good state of affairs. They usually would argue that individual freedom leads to unfulfilled lives. Such opponents would find support in the works of Plato and Aristotle, who argue the need to live the Good Life, a life that is defined by the role one plays within a society. Thomas Hobbes would also disagree with Mill. He thinks that individual freedom must be sacrificed to a powerful sovereign if those individuals are to avoid war and conflict.
I do not think that Hobbes would allow the white supremacists to march, if the march would lead to frustration or harm the black community, because it would them mean that there was an imbalance in the freedom given up by some. If this imbalance was corrected by the sovereign allowing the blacks to have their own march, it would lead to frustration on the other side, possibly resulting in conflict, and so the sovereign would not be doing his job. The only way the sovereign could protect all the members of society would be to ban the march in the first place. Freedom is given up for the sake of peace and survival.
Now there are problems for Mill in saying just what it means to harm someone, or the limits of encouragement that is allowable, but generally most people would perhaps agree with his views. There are however opponents that would disagree with Mill. I think we can identify three major types: one that is call 'free speech hypocrites', a second which could be called 'free speech humanitarians'. Both of these work within Mill’s framework and disagree with the details of Mill's theory. But a third opponent is one who would reject entirely what Mill has to say about liberty.
Free speech hypocrites are all those like the white supremacists, who argue the case for freedom of speech as a constitutional right under law, so that they can march, but only appeal to the value of free speech in order to actively deny such rights to others, namely those living in the black neighborhood. Such opponents would not accept the consequence of Mill's view that everyone has the freedom to do what they want. They would not want others to be free to march against them.
The second group agrees with Mill that liberty is a good thing and free speech should be permitted, but disagree with Mill that whatever its content, free speech does no harm. They would argue that racism, homophobia, fascism, and other prejudiced beliefs are harmful and should be prevented from being freely expressed. The problem here is that no matter what anyone says it will offend someone; should we therefore ban all differing opinion, or offensive behavior?
The third opponent does not agree with Mill that free speech or individual liberty is necessarily a good state of affairs. They usually would argue that individual freedom leads to unfulfilled lives. Such opponents would find support in the works of Plato and Aristotle, who argue the need to live the Good Life, a life that is defined by the role one plays within a society. Thomas Hobbes would also disagree with Mill. He thinks that individual freedom must be sacrificed to a powerful sovereign if those individuals are to avoid war and conflict.
I do not think that Hobbes would allow the white supremacists to march, if the march would lead to frustration or harm the black community, because it would them mean that there was an imbalance in the freedom given up by some. If this imbalance was corrected by the sovereign allowing the blacks to have their own march, it would lead to frustration on the other side, possibly resulting in conflict, and so the sovereign would not be doing his job. The only way the sovereign could protect all the members of society would be to ban the march in the first place. Freedom is given up for the sake of peace and survival.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Why Study Philosophy?
The study of philosophy is really only the recognition and placing on a formal and justified footing of what everyone always already does; because all of us act and think in terms of some 'philosophy' that guides, steers or orients us. We perceive things in terms of our 'philosophy'. How many people are victims of the philosophy of others? The answer is probably, most people. And how much of other people's philosophy has been neither examined or only ill examined by them? The answer, again, is probably, most of it. That is a scary thought. Another example of our pre-existing relationship with philosophy that all of us always already have, is relationships, and love in particular. Our ideas about relationships and other people guide our behavior. The way we react to other people's behavior toward our self in relationships affects our self-regard. We form habits from our beliefs that have arisen out of our patterns of thought, which have become ingrained. In short, the way we think is the essence of the way we are.
If, then, we turn our thinking upon itself, if we decide to improve this area of our being, we will need to study philosophy. Of course there are different methods of study and different areas of philosophy that we might take up. The point here is that we are already caught up in philosophy whether we like it or not. The choice to take up philosophy in this or that way, or to take up this or that kind of philosophy is itself philosophical. I am not taking you round in circular arguments here: the fact is that philosophy is embracing. A human being cannot step outside its embrace without ceasing to be human.
So, philosophy is for people who want a life that is more worth living and to live in a world which is a better place. This "more" and this "better" depend on philosophy, no matter what the circumstances.
If, then, we turn our thinking upon itself, if we decide to improve this area of our being, we will need to study philosophy. Of course there are different methods of study and different areas of philosophy that we might take up. The point here is that we are already caught up in philosophy whether we like it or not. The choice to take up philosophy in this or that way, or to take up this or that kind of philosophy is itself philosophical. I am not taking you round in circular arguments here: the fact is that philosophy is embracing. A human being cannot step outside its embrace without ceasing to be human.
So, philosophy is for people who want a life that is more worth living and to live in a world which is a better place. This "more" and this "better" depend on philosophy, no matter what the circumstances.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Can Faith Be Rational?
The answer we get is apt to differ from philosopher to philosopher, since religion is an emotional topic.
It seems to me that religious belief should be thought of as similar to all other beliefs (although, of course, very important to those who have it). Faith seems to me as just a kind of belief, although, no doubt very fervent belief. It is, therefore, not an alternative to belief, but like all beliefs, it needs reasons for it to be a rational belief. It seems to me a bad error to say something like, "I don't need reason because I believe 'on faith'." That treats faith as a kind of reason, when, in fact, it isn't. It (to repeat) needs reasons. So, to say "I believe on faith (or worse 'on the grounds of faith')" is only to say, "I believe because I believe." So faith (or religious belief) is not rational on its own. It is rational only if it is backed up by reason.
Sometimes, faith is identified with revelation: direct communication with God. The philosopher, John Locke, pointed out that even if we accept (as he thought we must) that revelation is true, since it is the direct word of God, nevertheless we have to determine whether what we believe is a revelation really is a revelation and not, perhaps, from the Devil, or because we are under the influence of some drug. And the only way to decide that is by reason. So even in the case of revelation, reason trumps faith.
It seems to me that religious belief should be thought of as similar to all other beliefs (although, of course, very important to those who have it). Faith seems to me as just a kind of belief, although, no doubt very fervent belief. It is, therefore, not an alternative to belief, but like all beliefs, it needs reasons for it to be a rational belief. It seems to me a bad error to say something like, "I don't need reason because I believe 'on faith'." That treats faith as a kind of reason, when, in fact, it isn't. It (to repeat) needs reasons. So, to say "I believe on faith (or worse 'on the grounds of faith')" is only to say, "I believe because I believe." So faith (or religious belief) is not rational on its own. It is rational only if it is backed up by reason.
Sometimes, faith is identified with revelation: direct communication with God. The philosopher, John Locke, pointed out that even if we accept (as he thought we must) that revelation is true, since it is the direct word of God, nevertheless we have to determine whether what we believe is a revelation really is a revelation and not, perhaps, from the Devil, or because we are under the influence of some drug. And the only way to decide that is by reason. So even in the case of revelation, reason trumps faith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
