[Note: This blog appeared last year. It was meant to be the first of several political blogs, but I stopped blogging altogether after the first one. I would like to follow through now, however, and on Sunday/Monday, I will post the part II in this series.]
Is there any philosophical difference between Republicans and Democrats? Sometimes, the positions these two sides take on various issues seem pretty arbitrary. There just doesn’t seem to be any consistent pattern underlying each political party, and so it becomes – well, politics. However, I believe that there are consistent philosophies to be discovered on each side, and I want to lay bare those differences, and also argue the liberal position on several of the specific issues.
A Liberal society (in the sense of Liberal v. Communist, Islamist, etc., not the small “l” liberal v. conservative) has three distinguishing values that make it different from all other societies: the value of private property, the value of equality, and the value of individual freedom (especially the freedom to make a choice in the form of voting). When it comes to individual freedom, both parties succeed and fail in various ways, and so it is difficult to develop a systematic understanding of the differences in this area. However, the conservative and liberal ideologies begin to contrast in terms of the first two values.
These differences first arise when private property and equality come into conflict. The conflict is actually fairly common because, as John Locke observed, money is the most common form of private property. And hence we get conservative Republicans always pushing tax cuts (because that means more private property), and the liberal Democrats working to repeal tax cuts on the wealthy (because that allows the government to afford various programs for the lower and middles classes, and so enhances the value of equality). So the conservative mantra is “Equality is important, but what really makes a Liberal society great is private property”, while the liberal motto is just the opposite: “Private property is important, but what really makes a Liberal society great is equality”. Sometimes this difference is expressed in terms of the size of government, where the conservatives promote more private property as so favor “small government”, and the liberals favor the government having a larger role to play is making society equal, and so is the party of “big government”. In the coming weeks, I wish to explain and argue for the various liberal positions on particular issues in contemporary American politics.
2.28.2008
2.18.2008
Love is a Miracle, Part VI: Conclusions
Every rational person is socialized, meaning that they can be polite, help their friends when their friends need someone, etc. This, however, is not evidence of agape love. There is, of course, nothing wrong with being socialized, but all it means is that you are normal. Jesus drew this contrast: After the command to “Love your enemies,” he makes sure no one is confused: “…if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even tax collectors do the same?” (Matt 5). Loving your friends simply means you are good at being a reciprocal human being, because smart people know deep down that being there for a friend means that she will be there for you when you need a friend – this is completely normal. But since you are the one who benefits here, your love for your friends is, in the final analysis, egoistic. But as we defined agape love, it must be a desire for something that has nothing to do with your own survival, pleasure, or prosperity.
In order to be an atheist, you must be committed to the idea that all love arises naturally through biological and/or sociological mechanisms, and I think it is reasonable to insist that most or even almost all love arises in this way. I like to think of myself as a nice person, but when I love my friends and colleagues, I am really wishing to avoid loneliness and to be successful – it is still all about me. Of course I don’t tell myself this often, but I think that these natural human drives really play a large role in our daily relationships with friends, colleagues, and family. While there is certainly nothing wrong with this, we must be very blunt with ourselves: does this explain all love?
The atheist is not inconsistent by answering “Yes.”; there is no logical contradiction here. But is seems plain to me that there are some who have a real lust for justice on behalf of others; they just get angry about the exploitation of other people (see Part III). Richard Dawkins (part IV) makes it very plain that evolutionary ethics cannot account for this. Darwin himself points out that we are ruthlessly selfish, right down to our genes, and that all apparent altruism can be accounted for as merely the protection of our own genes.
All love is desire for something. Usually, love is egoistic, meaning that it benefits me in some way. This is true both in our love for our friends, and in sexual love. This sort of love is normal, healthy, and human. But there is no good sociological or biological reason why love should be any more than that. If, then, we conclude that there is such as thing as desiring justice on behalf of someone from a different gene pool and/or race or society, then love is a miracle. The atheists keep looking for naturalistic explanations for this phenomenon, but those of us who are religious are not confused about how the natural order of things became ruptured: “God is love.” This also explains why some have both agape AND human love, while some love only humanly: “Everyone that loves has been born of God, and knows God. The one who does not love, does not know God, because God is love” (I John 4). And no, it doesn’t have anything to do with whether you believe that the proposition “God exists” is true or false. There are many who believe that it is true that are not really lovers, just as there are some, I believe, who really know God despite themselves.
I don’t take these last 6 weeks to add up to an argument for God’s existence. But everyone has many choices about how he or she will view the world, and as rational beings, we can’t help but have opinions about the ultimate nature of our universe. If you find yourself to be someone who lusts for justice on behalf of people you don’t really know, then I insist that for that sake of consistency, you should also believe that God exists and seek how you might worship God.
In order to be an atheist, you must be committed to the idea that all love arises naturally through biological and/or sociological mechanisms, and I think it is reasonable to insist that most or even almost all love arises in this way. I like to think of myself as a nice person, but when I love my friends and colleagues, I am really wishing to avoid loneliness and to be successful – it is still all about me. Of course I don’t tell myself this often, but I think that these natural human drives really play a large role in our daily relationships with friends, colleagues, and family. While there is certainly nothing wrong with this, we must be very blunt with ourselves: does this explain all love?
The atheist is not inconsistent by answering “Yes.”; there is no logical contradiction here. But is seems plain to me that there are some who have a real lust for justice on behalf of others; they just get angry about the exploitation of other people (see Part III). Richard Dawkins (part IV) makes it very plain that evolutionary ethics cannot account for this. Darwin himself points out that we are ruthlessly selfish, right down to our genes, and that all apparent altruism can be accounted for as merely the protection of our own genes.
All love is desire for something. Usually, love is egoistic, meaning that it benefits me in some way. This is true both in our love for our friends, and in sexual love. This sort of love is normal, healthy, and human. But there is no good sociological or biological reason why love should be any more than that. If, then, we conclude that there is such as thing as desiring justice on behalf of someone from a different gene pool and/or race or society, then love is a miracle. The atheists keep looking for naturalistic explanations for this phenomenon, but those of us who are religious are not confused about how the natural order of things became ruptured: “God is love.” This also explains why some have both agape AND human love, while some love only humanly: “Everyone that loves has been born of God, and knows God. The one who does not love, does not know God, because God is love” (I John 4). And no, it doesn’t have anything to do with whether you believe that the proposition “God exists” is true or false. There are many who believe that it is true that are not really lovers, just as there are some, I believe, who really know God despite themselves.
I don’t take these last 6 weeks to add up to an argument for God’s existence. But everyone has many choices about how he or she will view the world, and as rational beings, we can’t help but have opinions about the ultimate nature of our universe. If you find yourself to be someone who lusts for justice on behalf of people you don’t really know, then I insist that for that sake of consistency, you should also believe that God exists and seek how you might worship God.
2.12.2008
Love is a Miracle, Part V
Another strategy to explain away agape love, as the atheist must do in order to be an actual atheist, is to argue that all ethics are socially constructed. This is sometimes called the argument from cultural relativism. The idea is that human beings consciously or unconsciously adopt (or reject) the values of the culture in which they live. So whether positively or negatively, cultural values determine what an individual values.
J.L. Mackie, a cultural relativist a professed atheist, expresses the point this way in his book Inventing Right and Wrong: “Disagreement about moral codes seems to reflect adherence to and participation in different ways of life” (94). That is to say, the mere existence of varying and/or conflicting ethical standards between cultures combined with the relatively high levels of agreement about ethical standards within cultures implies that an individual’s ethical standards are at least partly dependent upon the culture from which she comes. As Mackie puts it, this argument can be expressed in causal terms. He uses the example of the value of monogamy: “The casual connection seems to be mainly that way round: it is that people approve of monogamy because they participate in a monogamous way of life rather than that they participate in a monogamous way of life because they approve of monogamy” (94-5).
This causal connection indeed seems true, but only trivially so. Consider the example of certain Mormon values, such as disdain for caffeine, that are prevalent in Utah but in no other state. From a statistical standpoint, it would be utterly astounding if nearly all of Americans who disapproved of caffeine-drinking on moral grounds coincidently all lived in Utah, were Mormon values were laudable and practiced. It is not much to infer that people who morally disapprove of caffeine-drinking do so because their culture made it customary and hence ordinary.
Mackie has merely pushed back the question one level: now we want to know if any cultures are superior to any others with respect to the values they have. To many, it seems arrogant to talk about one cultural as superior to another, but I don’t have any problem with this. It seems intuitive that societies that had slaves or contemporary societies that don’t extend rights to women are culturally inferior to cultures that don’t have slaves or respect women as equals. So yes, I agree with Mackie that my values are relative in the sense that my moral education from my family and culture determines my own values. I can freely admit, although with some shame, that if I were born in certain places in the Middle East, I would think of women as second-class citizens. But I don’t see how that implies that values are relative – many of us still have the intuition that some practices really are unjust. We can simply still insist that some cultures are morally superior to other cultures. We still are waiting for an argument from the atheist to show that the phenomenon of love is reducible to sociology or biology.
J.L. Mackie, a cultural relativist a professed atheist, expresses the point this way in his book Inventing Right and Wrong: “Disagreement about moral codes seems to reflect adherence to and participation in different ways of life” (94). That is to say, the mere existence of varying and/or conflicting ethical standards between cultures combined with the relatively high levels of agreement about ethical standards within cultures implies that an individual’s ethical standards are at least partly dependent upon the culture from which she comes. As Mackie puts it, this argument can be expressed in causal terms. He uses the example of the value of monogamy: “The casual connection seems to be mainly that way round: it is that people approve of monogamy because they participate in a monogamous way of life rather than that they participate in a monogamous way of life because they approve of monogamy” (94-5).
This causal connection indeed seems true, but only trivially so. Consider the example of certain Mormon values, such as disdain for caffeine, that are prevalent in Utah but in no other state. From a statistical standpoint, it would be utterly astounding if nearly all of Americans who disapproved of caffeine-drinking on moral grounds coincidently all lived in Utah, were Mormon values were laudable and practiced. It is not much to infer that people who morally disapprove of caffeine-drinking do so because their culture made it customary and hence ordinary.
Mackie has merely pushed back the question one level: now we want to know if any cultures are superior to any others with respect to the values they have. To many, it seems arrogant to talk about one cultural as superior to another, but I don’t have any problem with this. It seems intuitive that societies that had slaves or contemporary societies that don’t extend rights to women are culturally inferior to cultures that don’t have slaves or respect women as equals. So yes, I agree with Mackie that my values are relative in the sense that my moral education from my family and culture determines my own values. I can freely admit, although with some shame, that if I were born in certain places in the Middle East, I would think of women as second-class citizens. But I don’t see how that implies that values are relative – many of us still have the intuition that some practices really are unjust. We can simply still insist that some cultures are morally superior to other cultures. We still are waiting for an argument from the atheist to show that the phenomenon of love is reducible to sociology or biology.
2.04.2008
Love is a Miracle, Part IV
There are many apparent examples of what I called last week “altruistic indignation.” One experiences altruistic indignation if one becomes angry at the perceived unjust treatment of another person. Does this phenomenon really exist? Do we ever genuinely become grieved when someone who is not ourselves is being treated unjustly? The answer to this question is vital. If the answer is “Yes, there really is such a thing as altruistic indignation,” then this poses a problem for the atheist. This week, and the next two weeks, I want to examine typical attempted atheistic explanations for this.
The most common response is from evolutionary ethics. Take for example, the wolf who stays behind to fight the enemy, even though he knows that he will die, so that the rest of the pack can go free. This seems at first glance to be a strong example of altruism – the wolf lays down its own life for its pack. The wolf's altruism comes from its evolutionary instinct to keep its species alive, at all costs. The wolf has a deep instinct to lay down its life for its pack, just as the parent has a deep instinct to lay down her life for her children, if need be. For the evolutionary ethicist, these altruistic instincts are implanted in us by mother nature, for these instincts are what is necessary to keep our own species around.
Richard Dawkins is a fierce critic of the doctrine that mother nature has made us altruists for the sake of the propagation of life. Dawkins, along with Peter Singer, is one of the two living thinkers best known for being atheistic. In his famous book, The Selfish Gene (and specifically Chapter One – Why are People?), Dawkins calls this wishful, un-Darwinistic thinking. Many evolutionists falsely buy into the idea that we have altruistic instincts for the sake of the survival of our own species, but that is because they do not understand Darwinism properly. Dawkins defends Darwin’s idea that we are all “ruthlessly selfish,” right down to our genes. Therefore, the true Dawinistic explanation of the wolf laying down its life for the pack is that it is protecting its own genes: it is ultimately an egoistic action, even though it appears to be “altruistic” to some wishful thinkers.
So is there really such a thing as altruism (in our restricted sense of altruistic indignation)? The evolutionary ethicist says “Yes,” and the explanation is that mother nature has made us altruistic as a survival mechanism for our species. Unfortunately, as Dawkins points out, this is wildly un-Darwinistic. Even though some may find it odd because of my Christian world-view, I really like Darwinism. Although I am no scientist, I find Darwinism helpful to my cause, simply because of its thesis that we are all ruthlessly selfish in every way. Seeing the world this way makes the miracle of love all the more salient. If we are all ruthlessly selfish, and yet we can find examples of altruism, then the miracle of love is even more miraculous!
The evolutionary ethicist has proposed the theory that we are altruistic for the sake of the survival of our own species. Dawkins has pointed out that these evolutionists are “fairy tale” evolutionists, because Darwin’s theory of natural selection, properly understood, excludes this possibility. While I am happy to let Dawkins win that debate, I have tried to point out that while evolution, as Dawkins explains it, can explain (at least some) altruistic actions, it cannot explain altruistic indignation, at least when it is for the sake of someone on the other side of the world. Dawkins’ idea, which he lays out in Chapter Five of his book, is that altruism is decreased by a factor of two each successive generation, and is also decreased as one moves further from one’s immediate gene pool. So since my children carry half of my genes, I am very altruistic toward them. If I have grandchildren some day, they will carry one-fourth of my genes, and so I will be slightly less altruistic towards them (And why do some love their adopted children? Dawkins insists that this is a genetic malfunction!). And I will be even less altruistic toward my future nieces and nephews, since they have a few of my genes, but not a lot. This is a very brief summary Dawkins’ explanation of Darwinism, but it brings up a wonderful question: Why would I be angry about the unjust treatment of women on the other side of the globe? Darwin says I should not be. Halleluiah!
The most common response is from evolutionary ethics. Take for example, the wolf who stays behind to fight the enemy, even though he knows that he will die, so that the rest of the pack can go free. This seems at first glance to be a strong example of altruism – the wolf lays down its own life for its pack. The wolf's altruism comes from its evolutionary instinct to keep its species alive, at all costs. The wolf has a deep instinct to lay down its life for its pack, just as the parent has a deep instinct to lay down her life for her children, if need be. For the evolutionary ethicist, these altruistic instincts are implanted in us by mother nature, for these instincts are what is necessary to keep our own species around.
Richard Dawkins is a fierce critic of the doctrine that mother nature has made us altruists for the sake of the propagation of life. Dawkins, along with Peter Singer, is one of the two living thinkers best known for being atheistic. In his famous book, The Selfish Gene (and specifically Chapter One – Why are People?), Dawkins calls this wishful, un-Darwinistic thinking. Many evolutionists falsely buy into the idea that we have altruistic instincts for the sake of the survival of our own species, but that is because they do not understand Darwinism properly. Dawkins defends Darwin’s idea that we are all “ruthlessly selfish,” right down to our genes. Therefore, the true Dawinistic explanation of the wolf laying down its life for the pack is that it is protecting its own genes: it is ultimately an egoistic action, even though it appears to be “altruistic” to some wishful thinkers.
So is there really such a thing as altruism (in our restricted sense of altruistic indignation)? The evolutionary ethicist says “Yes,” and the explanation is that mother nature has made us altruistic as a survival mechanism for our species. Unfortunately, as Dawkins points out, this is wildly un-Darwinistic. Even though some may find it odd because of my Christian world-view, I really like Darwinism. Although I am no scientist, I find Darwinism helpful to my cause, simply because of its thesis that we are all ruthlessly selfish in every way. Seeing the world this way makes the miracle of love all the more salient. If we are all ruthlessly selfish, and yet we can find examples of altruism, then the miracle of love is even more miraculous!
The evolutionary ethicist has proposed the theory that we are altruistic for the sake of the survival of our own species. Dawkins has pointed out that these evolutionists are “fairy tale” evolutionists, because Darwin’s theory of natural selection, properly understood, excludes this possibility. While I am happy to let Dawkins win that debate, I have tried to point out that while evolution, as Dawkins explains it, can explain (at least some) altruistic actions, it cannot explain altruistic indignation, at least when it is for the sake of someone on the other side of the world. Dawkins’ idea, which he lays out in Chapter Five of his book, is that altruism is decreased by a factor of two each successive generation, and is also decreased as one moves further from one’s immediate gene pool. So since my children carry half of my genes, I am very altruistic toward them. If I have grandchildren some day, they will carry one-fourth of my genes, and so I will be slightly less altruistic towards them (And why do some love their adopted children? Dawkins insists that this is a genetic malfunction!). And I will be even less altruistic toward my future nieces and nephews, since they have a few of my genes, but not a lot. This is a very brief summary Dawkins’ explanation of Darwinism, but it brings up a wonderful question: Why would I be angry about the unjust treatment of women on the other side of the globe? Darwin says I should not be. Halleluiah!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)