Death, Neutrality, and Ethics
I know it's been quite a while since I've had a journal entry, but I have been writing. I've just been letting it all build up with the intent of making one big post. Well, I still haven't written all I had planned to put into this one, but it's already quite long, so here it is. I have found myself unusually happy lately. I have no idea what has brought it on, I wish I did know, but I'm certainly not complaining. It comes at the most random of times when usually I would just not really feel anything, such as when I'm driving in my car, or laying down to go to bed.
Also, I've been thinking about death lately, imagining what the experience itself might be like. The constant noise of my senses would gradually quiet down, until the world itself was merely a fading echo. Yet, my consciousness and being remains, awaiting whatever may come next. I feel almost overwhelmed with anticipation, for the coming truth. In this very moment, the culmination of my entire life, I will learn what I have always been trying to discover. The excitement, and emotion of marriage or winning the lottery, or other great life change, pale in comparison to this defining moment of moving from the only stage of existence I have ever known, to a new one, completely novel and fresh to me. Of course, it could very well be the case that none of this happens at all; that my senses quiet, as do my thoughts, and then I go into the eternal sleep. This life could be the end.
These contemplations bring me to a new appreciation and reaquaintance with life itself. Suddenly it is as if I have woken from a half-conscious state of following routine and habit. All that had transpired that day seems so surreal, "Was that ME? Was I doing all that stuff?" While at the time those actions seemed normal, now from this perspective it was as if I was simply observing them instead of participating in them. But at the same time, sometimes, I'm ok. There is nothing wrong, no problems, no worries, no concerns. At that moment, all is perfect.
Also, I realize how starkly disconnected from actual life and reality my abstract philosophical ideas are. Or at least, how I had been treating them in such an unrealistic way, as if they were a math problem I was working on. It may be that the more abstract a concept it, the less relevant to real life it is. I need to remember to always make an effort in my intellectual flights, to occasionally bring them back to earth and look at them as if they were truly real, and think how I would respond to such a situation in my life. Keep that in mind as I now go over some new philosophical concepts I've been working on. This first one originated in a discussion with some friends about the subject of neutrality.
Neutrality on issues:
Some would say that by remaining neutral on a topic or issue that has practical implications, you are endorsing a certain position on the issue simply by your neutrality. For example, by stating that you are neutral on the issue of abortion, that is equal to accepting it and thus you are pro-choice. It seems to me that this is not necessarily the case and there is another level to this that is being left out. To keep things simple I will assume that all issues have only two polarities and a position of neutrality resides between those. In reality, issues are quite a bit more complex.
In an ideal world, we would have knowledge of, and thus a position on every issue. However, time limits our ability to investigate all of the issues so what we end up doing is making a value judgment about how relevant that issue is to us and the world, before we come to a conclusion on it. Based on this value judgment, we allocate our time accordingly; less time to those issues we perceive to be more trivial, or inconsequential to us, and more time to those that greatly affect our lives. So when asked about a particular hot topic, while a person saying something to the effect of, "I don't really care," does not imply a certain position on the topic itself, that "neutrality" does reveal how they rank that issue in importance or relevance to them and their lives.
A distinction must be made though between the person who is neutral because they aren't really interested in the topic, and the person who is actively engaged in an inner debate on the topic but has not yet come to a conclusion and so are neutral. Their action in seeking an answer to the issue in itself raises that issue's value judgment, despite the position they may or may not take on it. One final stipulation must also be made clear, and that is the factor of ignorance. If a person is ignorant of an issue, then they cannot make a value judgment of it. Thus, their lack of a position on that issue and actions that relate to it, do not give witness to their position or value judgment of it.
On a related note, something should be said of endorsing a particular position through ones actions. For example, some would claim that by buying shoes from a particular brand known to be exploiting laborers in foreign countries, you are endorsing those actions. However I would make a distinction between "endorsement" which implies intention, and effects, which happen whether or not we intend them or are even aware of them. So the person buying such shoes is responsible for the effects or consequences of their actions, such as the further exploitation of workers. The person who is not aware of this fact is not responsible simply because of their ignorance. However, neither of these people necessarily endorses nor agrees with the actions. Yet, the first is admitting his unconcern over the actions; his judgment of their value. I could try to fit all of these aspects and stipulations into one visual diagram, but it would end up being so complicated and convoluted that it really wouldn't help people understand, and would probably confuse them more. (see diagram)
Ethics:
Just to set the foundation; we have a set of natural, instinctual behaviors that may have been established by the process of evolution. These instinctual behaviors are not all bad, but some could use some taming in the interest of society.
What I propose is a new way to measure right and wrong, or a new definition of them. That which is "right" increases the fulfillment of the shared desires of all humans. Likewise, that which is "wrong" decreases the fulfillment of these desires. Now, these ambiguous "shared desires" can be found OBJECTIVELY by a test or survey of what people desire. I would presume that some desires common amongst almost all humans are things like happiness, wellbeing, peace, and success. One advantage to this model is that it is adaptive to the changing desires of the global society. Another is that it avoids the conflict caused by people's different conceptions of the "ideal world" that we should strive for. So in a sense it is a democratically selected ideal that most can agree on. To illustrate; we can turn this system of ethics into a simple algebra equation to solve. (Those that failed algebra are sadly doomed...)
[World-as-it-is-now] + [X] = [Ideal world]
*Where X is the "right" or "good"
We know how the world is now, and we know how we collectively want it to be. So all we must do to figure out how to act morally right is solve the equation for X. This is quite a bit more difficult in real life with all the pesky details, but at least it's a framework. It seems to me a bit like utilitarianism, except that instead of a prescribed goal (happiness) it is discovered in the wants and desires of the society.
Now, to your satisfaction or disgust as the case may be, I will invoke Lewis. "I admit that this means loving people who have nothing lovable about them. But then, has oneself anything lovable about it? You love it simply because it is yourself. God intends us to love all selves in the same way and for the same reason: but He has given us the sum ready worked out in our own case to show us how it works. We have then to go on and apply the rule to all the other selves. Perhaps it makes it easier if we remember that that is how He loves us. Not for any nice, attractive qualities we think we have, but just because we are the things called selves. For really there is nothing else in us to love: creatures like us who actually find hatred such a pleasure that to give it up is like giving up beer or tobacco..." (C. S. Lewis. Mere Christianity pg120) I like how he compares the unconditional love we have for ourselves to the love we should have for all people. It gives a really familiar example to work with and towards.
These ideas still don't quite answer the question of why we ought to do good, but you might say that the existential situation we are presented with, that this is the only life we have, makes the most convincing reason to try to make the best of it for ourselves and all others.
On a semi-related note, when learning about Maslow's hierarchy in class I thought about how it could be applied and used in a system of ethics. We can use the hierarchy as a tool for determining what is right. We should collectively try to move each other and everyone up the hierarchy through our actions. However the purpose of this is not so that all can enjoy the creations of the self-actualized beings that would result, such as their art, ideas, work and so on. Instead it is merely for the beings themselves. People are the ultimate end, not a quest for truth or beauty. Anyways, back to the real world. Goodnight.
Also, I've been thinking about death lately, imagining what the experience itself might be like. The constant noise of my senses would gradually quiet down, until the world itself was merely a fading echo. Yet, my consciousness and being remains, awaiting whatever may come next. I feel almost overwhelmed with anticipation, for the coming truth. In this very moment, the culmination of my entire life, I will learn what I have always been trying to discover. The excitement, and emotion of marriage or winning the lottery, or other great life change, pale in comparison to this defining moment of moving from the only stage of existence I have ever known, to a new one, completely novel and fresh to me. Of course, it could very well be the case that none of this happens at all; that my senses quiet, as do my thoughts, and then I go into the eternal sleep. This life could be the end.
These contemplations bring me to a new appreciation and reaquaintance with life itself. Suddenly it is as if I have woken from a half-conscious state of following routine and habit. All that had transpired that day seems so surreal, "Was that ME? Was I doing all that stuff?" While at the time those actions seemed normal, now from this perspective it was as if I was simply observing them instead of participating in them. But at the same time, sometimes, I'm ok. There is nothing wrong, no problems, no worries, no concerns. At that moment, all is perfect.
Also, I realize how starkly disconnected from actual life and reality my abstract philosophical ideas are. Or at least, how I had been treating them in such an unrealistic way, as if they were a math problem I was working on. It may be that the more abstract a concept it, the less relevant to real life it is. I need to remember to always make an effort in my intellectual flights, to occasionally bring them back to earth and look at them as if they were truly real, and think how I would respond to such a situation in my life. Keep that in mind as I now go over some new philosophical concepts I've been working on. This first one originated in a discussion with some friends about the subject of neutrality.
Neutrality on issues:
Some would say that by remaining neutral on a topic or issue that has practical implications, you are endorsing a certain position on the issue simply by your neutrality. For example, by stating that you are neutral on the issue of abortion, that is equal to accepting it and thus you are pro-choice. It seems to me that this is not necessarily the case and there is another level to this that is being left out. To keep things simple I will assume that all issues have only two polarities and a position of neutrality resides between those. In reality, issues are quite a bit more complex.
In an ideal world, we would have knowledge of, and thus a position on every issue. However, time limits our ability to investigate all of the issues so what we end up doing is making a value judgment about how relevant that issue is to us and the world, before we come to a conclusion on it. Based on this value judgment, we allocate our time accordingly; less time to those issues we perceive to be more trivial, or inconsequential to us, and more time to those that greatly affect our lives. So when asked about a particular hot topic, while a person saying something to the effect of, "I don't really care," does not imply a certain position on the topic itself, that "neutrality" does reveal how they rank that issue in importance or relevance to them and their lives.
A distinction must be made though between the person who is neutral because they aren't really interested in the topic, and the person who is actively engaged in an inner debate on the topic but has not yet come to a conclusion and so are neutral. Their action in seeking an answer to the issue in itself raises that issue's value judgment, despite the position they may or may not take on it. One final stipulation must also be made clear, and that is the factor of ignorance. If a person is ignorant of an issue, then they cannot make a value judgment of it. Thus, their lack of a position on that issue and actions that relate to it, do not give witness to their position or value judgment of it.
On a related note, something should be said of endorsing a particular position through ones actions. For example, some would claim that by buying shoes from a particular brand known to be exploiting laborers in foreign countries, you are endorsing those actions. However I would make a distinction between "endorsement" which implies intention, and effects, which happen whether or not we intend them or are even aware of them. So the person buying such shoes is responsible for the effects or consequences of their actions, such as the further exploitation of workers. The person who is not aware of this fact is not responsible simply because of their ignorance. However, neither of these people necessarily endorses nor agrees with the actions. Yet, the first is admitting his unconcern over the actions; his judgment of their value. I could try to fit all of these aspects and stipulations into one visual diagram, but it would end up being so complicated and convoluted that it really wouldn't help people understand, and would probably confuse them more. (see diagram)
Ethics:
Just to set the foundation; we have a set of natural, instinctual behaviors that may have been established by the process of evolution. These instinctual behaviors are not all bad, but some could use some taming in the interest of society.
What I propose is a new way to measure right and wrong, or a new definition of them. That which is "right" increases the fulfillment of the shared desires of all humans. Likewise, that which is "wrong" decreases the fulfillment of these desires. Now, these ambiguous "shared desires" can be found OBJECTIVELY by a test or survey of what people desire. I would presume that some desires common amongst almost all humans are things like happiness, wellbeing, peace, and success. One advantage to this model is that it is adaptive to the changing desires of the global society. Another is that it avoids the conflict caused by people's different conceptions of the "ideal world" that we should strive for. So in a sense it is a democratically selected ideal that most can agree on. To illustrate; we can turn this system of ethics into a simple algebra equation to solve. (Those that failed algebra are sadly doomed...)
[World-as-it-is-now] + [X] = [Ideal world]
*Where X is the "right" or "good"
We know how the world is now, and we know how we collectively want it to be. So all we must do to figure out how to act morally right is solve the equation for X. This is quite a bit more difficult in real life with all the pesky details, but at least it's a framework. It seems to me a bit like utilitarianism, except that instead of a prescribed goal (happiness) it is discovered in the wants and desires of the society.
Now, to your satisfaction or disgust as the case may be, I will invoke Lewis. "I admit that this means loving people who have nothing lovable about them. But then, has oneself anything lovable about it? You love it simply because it is yourself. God intends us to love all selves in the same way and for the same reason: but He has given us the sum ready worked out in our own case to show us how it works. We have then to go on and apply the rule to all the other selves. Perhaps it makes it easier if we remember that that is how He loves us. Not for any nice, attractive qualities we think we have, but just because we are the things called selves. For really there is nothing else in us to love: creatures like us who actually find hatred such a pleasure that to give it up is like giving up beer or tobacco..." (C. S. Lewis. Mere Christianity pg120) I like how he compares the unconditional love we have for ourselves to the love we should have for all people. It gives a really familiar example to work with and towards.
These ideas still don't quite answer the question of why we ought to do good, but you might say that the existential situation we are presented with, that this is the only life we have, makes the most convincing reason to try to make the best of it for ourselves and all others.
On a semi-related note, when learning about Maslow's hierarchy in class I thought about how it could be applied and used in a system of ethics. We can use the hierarchy as a tool for determining what is right. We should collectively try to move each other and everyone up the hierarchy through our actions. However the purpose of this is not so that all can enjoy the creations of the self-actualized beings that would result, such as their art, ideas, work and so on. Instead it is merely for the beings themselves. People are the ultimate end, not a quest for truth or beauty. Anyways, back to the real world. Goodnight.