It happens once every couple of years. Some bright student comes to me with his or her brain filled to the top with the teachings of his or her Philosophy Professor and I have to deprogram them. Don't get me wrong, I love philosophy. It's just that people tend to confuse it's purpose as I see it. The teachings of Socrates, Hume, Nietzsche, or Kant are great for critical thinking, but I don't think they're great for giving yourself a moral compass that will help you lead a full and satisfying life.
One of the basic philosophies that are taught here at my University is Relativism, which I refer to as Subjective Morality. Relativism is basically the belief that ethical truths and morality are relative to the individual or groups that hold them. Or in simpler terms, what you believe is wrong, may not be what I believe is wrong. While I understand that theory, the problem I have with it is, in one way or another, what you are saying is there really isn't a societal norm. If all morality or ethical truths are rooted in the individual, then why have any morality at all? I'll just reach into my basket and pick out what I think is wrong (most likely the things that other people do that I dislike) and leave my basket full of the things I think are right. (most likely things that I like to do that someone else might think is wrong). Since there is no consensus on what is in each others basket, we'll just fill each of ours with whatever makes us feel good as an individual.
For this to work, you have to empty your brain of any thought that what you do has any effect on anyone else in society. For example; I like spitting, you think it's wrong because it spreads disease and is disgusting to step in. I see no reason to care as spitting is fun and is in my basket of things that are right. Since there is no way you can put things in my basket if I don't want you to (because that is your morality and has nothing to do with me), I'll continue spitting anywhere I see fit. Despite the fact that you believe that our morality should not be relative to each other, you still step in my spit.
Theology (basically religion) is a different animal as it was created as a universal set of morals for a society of people. The idea being, if our shared morality is used to confront a problem, such as spitting, we turn to that morality to judge whether or not I should cease or you should except it. Over time people adjust their Theology to fit their society to create a society that has as little confrontation as possible. The main difference between philosophy and theology is that one (theology) is directed to the betterment of society, whether successful or not. The other is directed to the fulfilment of the individuals life and understanding of it.
Now let me take it a little further, Philosophy is corruptable for the individual if the person arguing against you is better at making their point. The important fact here is; they don't have to be right, just better at arguing. Since your morality is subjective, or debatable, all I have to do is convince you and only you that it doesn't belong there and my morality goes in. This gives considerable power to the more intelligent among us and is the reason it's so favored by academia in my opinion. Think of it this way; I'm a gray-haired, ponytailed, professor of considerable intellect teaching at your local University. I'm no longer attractive in the conventional sense and am not getting laid nearly as much as I was in the "Free Love" days of my prime. Your an impressionable young thing in my class. What do you think I would advocate to get you to sleep with me and then convince myself that it's right, philosophy or theology?
That's the basic problem that I have with the whole idea of replacing strict morals with Subjective Morality. It allows the brightest among us to pray on the most impressionable or not-as-smart. If I'm looking at what's best to protect the most vulnerable (and I do), I have to lean towards religion. Even the dimmest young girl or boy can be given a strict set of morals and the guilt that comes with it and be protected from being corrupted by Subjective Moralists. I know a lot of you think that guilt is a terrible thing, but sometimes it's all that stands between us and doing something we might later regret. I also know that not all people that study philosophy are up to no good, but I've also seen enough bad people use it to know it has it's dark side. The teachings of our great philosophers can open your mind up to new ways of thinking, but in the end the best thing to protect the weakest among us is theology, not Subjective Morality. We should think long and hard about what we're throwing away and who we're throwing under the bus when we take the path of philosophy over theology. H.C.
One of the basic philosophies that are taught here at my University is Relativism, which I refer to as Subjective Morality. Relativism is basically the belief that ethical truths and morality are relative to the individual or groups that hold them. Or in simpler terms, what you believe is wrong, may not be what I believe is wrong. While I understand that theory, the problem I have with it is, in one way or another, what you are saying is there really isn't a societal norm. If all morality or ethical truths are rooted in the individual, then why have any morality at all? I'll just reach into my basket and pick out what I think is wrong (most likely the things that other people do that I dislike) and leave my basket full of the things I think are right. (most likely things that I like to do that someone else might think is wrong). Since there is no consensus on what is in each others basket, we'll just fill each of ours with whatever makes us feel good as an individual.
For this to work, you have to empty your brain of any thought that what you do has any effect on anyone else in society. For example; I like spitting, you think it's wrong because it spreads disease and is disgusting to step in. I see no reason to care as spitting is fun and is in my basket of things that are right. Since there is no way you can put things in my basket if I don't want you to (because that is your morality and has nothing to do with me), I'll continue spitting anywhere I see fit. Despite the fact that you believe that our morality should not be relative to each other, you still step in my spit.
Theology (basically religion) is a different animal as it was created as a universal set of morals for a society of people. The idea being, if our shared morality is used to confront a problem, such as spitting, we turn to that morality to judge whether or not I should cease or you should except it. Over time people adjust their Theology to fit their society to create a society that has as little confrontation as possible. The main difference between philosophy and theology is that one (theology) is directed to the betterment of society, whether successful or not. The other is directed to the fulfilment of the individuals life and understanding of it.
Now let me take it a little further, Philosophy is corruptable for the individual if the person arguing against you is better at making their point. The important fact here is; they don't have to be right, just better at arguing. Since your morality is subjective, or debatable, all I have to do is convince you and only you that it doesn't belong there and my morality goes in. This gives considerable power to the more intelligent among us and is the reason it's so favored by academia in my opinion. Think of it this way; I'm a gray-haired, ponytailed, professor of considerable intellect teaching at your local University. I'm no longer attractive in the conventional sense and am not getting laid nearly as much as I was in the "Free Love" days of my prime. Your an impressionable young thing in my class. What do you think I would advocate to get you to sleep with me and then convince myself that it's right, philosophy or theology?
That's the basic problem that I have with the whole idea of replacing strict morals with Subjective Morality. It allows the brightest among us to pray on the most impressionable or not-as-smart. If I'm looking at what's best to protect the most vulnerable (and I do), I have to lean towards religion. Even the dimmest young girl or boy can be given a strict set of morals and the guilt that comes with it and be protected from being corrupted by Subjective Moralists. I know a lot of you think that guilt is a terrible thing, but sometimes it's all that stands between us and doing something we might later regret. I also know that not all people that study philosophy are up to no good, but I've also seen enough bad people use it to know it has it's dark side. The teachings of our great philosophers can open your mind up to new ways of thinking, but in the end the best thing to protect the weakest among us is theology, not Subjective Morality. We should think long and hard about what we're throwing away and who we're throwing under the bus when we take the path of philosophy over theology. H.C.
12 comments:
I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this one HC. (I'm sure it comes as a shock due to my passive attitude about religion. lol) I don't see how we can advance as a culture without critical thinking. The ideas of Socrates and Nietzsche are some of the most critical of them all. Plus it's healthy to be constantly searching for knowledge. Religion discourages knowledge because none of the religions are based on facts, it's all faith based. So basically you're saying the smart ones of society should be on an even playing field so everybody should be dumbed-down with the morals that are rooted in religion? Maybe you've seen people use the "dark side" of philosophy to bed a young lady, or maybe to use his mental prowess to get a free sweater from a less-than-brilliant GAP employee. Big deal!! I bet if you look back into history there have been 1000 times more deaths in this world in the name of Jesus or Muhammed than the philosophers of this world could ever inspire. I understand where you're coming from, it's too bad that the weak get preyed upon. But that all comes down to my favorite philosopher of all-time, Ol' Chuck Darwin. It's survival of the fittest and in the human species it's not about physical dominance as it is in the animal kingdom, but the mental capacity to be dominant...or having the most money. All I can say is "thank god I live in a society where only 2 of the 10 commandments are laws". (killing and stealing)
I like your quote "The important fact here is; they don't have to be right, just better at arguing." This reminds me of the movie "Thank you for Smoking" If you haven't seen it yet you have to, it's a must for anyone like yourself that enjoys debating. The main character is a PR guy for big tobacco and even though he knows he's wrong, he does such a good job of telling everyone else that they're mistaken, therefore proving that if they're wrong than he must be right by default.
Hey Tabor,
I'm not suprised to see you in the opposing column, but that's good for open dialog. I wasn't saying we shouldn't have critical thinking, in fact, I think we need more of it. It's just that one isn't the replacement for the other. And that's where I think people get confused.I don't want to "dumb down" anyone and I really don't even think you necessarily need to be religious to follow the tenets of Theology. It's really Subjective Morality vs. Absolute Morality. I.E. Raping a child IS WRONG, no debate. I guess it's not a "big deal" if someone's uses philosophy to corrupt a young girl.......unless it's your daughter. Absolute Morality may seem misguided to you, but I'm always concerned about protecting the vulnerable, and it does help in that regard. Food for thought; religion may kill a lot of people in it's misguided attempt to please it's God. But the top killers in history, Pol Pot, Hitler, and Stalin.....were all Atheists.
P.S.
I case you become confused about why I put Hitler in with the other two atheistic communists. Although Hitler was raised Catholic and claimed to be religious in his rise to power. It's well documented that through his own writings he claimed religion was only for controlling the masses (Mein Kampf) and told Stalin he shared his belief that ridding the world of religion was the only way to peace and his intention was to turn on the Vatican as soon as his control was absolute.
Hmm.. religion is only used to control the masses huh? Looks like me and old Hitler actually have something in common.
I like how you twisted my words of bedding a young lady into child rape. I don't think being a Don Juan that can manipulate an attractive woman into bed necessarily counts as child rape. It was a nice try at my jugular though.
Maybe some of the worst 3 individuals in modern history were atheists but I think their death tolls would pale in comparison to all the bloodshed that religion has caused since the dawn of time. It doesn't matter because I think atheists are a bunch of pussies too. Why won't people just become agnostic? It really is the only "religion" that has any logical base to stand on. I do like where you're going with the point that people don't need to be religious to follow the tenets of theology. I agree in full with that point. I think if the bible and koran were not taken so literally, religion could be a great thing.
Hey HC,
Having had several arguments with students following in the footsteps of their professors I can relate. It is often frustrating when these arguments boil down to: "But prof said!"
I'm not sure if it is what you meant to do, but it seems as if you are painting Socrates and Kant in a relativistic light (they are not relativists), in fact it looks as if you are presenting all philosophy in a relativistic light.
Religion (theology) is not free of the trappings of relativism, as it is growing more and more popular to find religions (and the appropriate moralities) that are right for you, and maybe not right for me.
Of final note: Theology is generally considered a philosophical study of the nature of God (or lack thereof) rather than a philosophical study of moral behavior (ethics).
Hey Tabor,
I'm sorry if it seemed like I was putting those two points together, (the child rape and corrupting). Those were two separate points, one being an example of Absolute Morality and the other a reason why you wouldn't always want women corruptable. I try not to take cheap shots, my apologies if anyone else thought that's what I was trying to do. Thanks for your thoughts on this, I do want all sides.
Hey Will,
No, I had no intention of putting Socrates and Kant in that catagory. If I was, I certainly would have included Protagoras in the list, who's image I put up front. I understand that not all philosophy is on Relativism, it's just the part of it that students seem to gravitate to in their first year and the part that seems to cause the most problems with their morality. For the record; this is not a bash on philosophy, only it's application. Thanks for your comments.
HC: I think that photo is Plato.
It's the philosophy the first year students espouse because it is pretty much all they teach (at your university). In fact, they recently "released" the only professor that taught a philosophy of absolute or objective morality.
It still seems like you are over-generalizing the applications of philosophy. The truths you are trying to point to are in themselves philosophical in nature.
Will,
Well, all philosophers look the same to me. I got that from google images and they had several with the same bust all marked "Protagoras", who as you know, is the father of Relativism, so your beef's with them, not me. It does seem Plato's bust is simular and Protagoras is best known from Plato's references so I'm not sure. As far as over-generalizing, I'm refering specifically to people who adopt Relativism in place of Theology. So what am I over generalizing?
HC: Damn you google images! ;)
The over generalization I meant was the implication that applications of philosophy result in relativistic ethics, where applying theology (itself a branch of philosophy) will get a more usable, objective ethic.
I don't mean to tell you what you were trying to say, just how I read it and understood it.
Though, I am trying to say that there is objective philosophy, and there is relativistic theology, both in theory and in application.
Will,
To avoid the risk of a protracted discussion on philosophy and theology both relative and objective I'll just say...O.K. (besides you still owe me a debate on morality)
Damn. This discussion makes me wish I stayed awake in Chuck Dunlop's philosophy class...
Post a Comment