Did you ever hear somebody speak, somebody you pretty much agree with, and feel, even so, that they have everything all reversed, mixed up, upside down and backwards? I heard someone like that the other day. He’s intelligent, funny, thoughtful, and articulate, and I agree with the aim of all his arguments. But I can’t for the life of me figure out why he thinks he makes any sense with the things he says to get to his conclusions!The subject was “telling right from wrong.” He started with a little thought experiment: Imagine that there is only one soul in the universe, and we are all reincarnated backwards and forwards in time from that one soul. Crazy, but just a hypothetical. If it were true, we’d all learn the value of compassion pretty quickly since everyone we torture is really ourself; everyone who starves is us; everyone put to death is us, and so on. You get the drift. Sounds pretty much like the Golden Rule or “there but for the grace of God go I.” On this basis, he derives his non-retributative just society, a sort of thoroughgoing Scandanavian welfare state, with all the details thought out.
I’m all for it! One problem, why did he need this little myth cum thought experiment? Is this news to anyone? Does he believe that there is a killer rational argument out there which, if ennunciated, will reduce all the selfish, egotistical, brutal ones of the world to a quivering mass of mush? “Oh yes, NOW I see, I shall be ethical from now on!” And why did he bother to invent this crazy little myth anyway, isn’t Christianity a good enough myth? After all, despite the fact that, as Nietzche said, the last Christian may have died on the cross, the basic idea isn’t that far off. He died for our sins, took the burden of all our souls on himself, and by his example, we may learn to do the same. What else is new?
I don’t think that lack of arguments is what is responsible for the parlous state of society. Nor do I believe that people who are evil are that way because they haven’t figured out the way to be good. No, a lot of the time they know what they are doing and just don’t care. That’s why they’re evil. Children are another matter, but by the time you’re an adult, it’s not that hard to figure out the difference between what’s fair and what’s not. The problem is not the figuring out, the problem is getting people to care. The selfish person who takes and deprives others doesn’t think he’s being fair – he doesn’t care about being fair. Argue until you are blue in the face…
This philosopher went on to elaborate his system by pointing at, the obvious, that we have no free will. Right?! And that being the case, how can we indulge in vengence towards others (who, in his thought experiment, are ourselves reincarnated?) Seems to me that there is a problem there, saying that we have no free will, but we do have souls. Even for an atheist, taking the term “soul” loosely, that’s quite a stretch.
I fear that my speaker is under the illusion that morality and justice can be rationally demonstrated from first principles, like Euclidean axioms purport to be. No, justice is a practical matter, and it’s decided by power. That’s not to say that might makes right, because as I said before, those ruling by might alone generally know (unless they are sociopaths, and even then, perhaps) that they are unjust – they just like it that way! But might makes the law, and can leave justice by the wayside. So, there’s no point in spending much time elaborating complex analytical frameworks to justify a fair society – the issues are pretty clear to everyone. Some don’t care, some would rather not be bothered. Don’t forget, Christianity has coexisted for centuries with social systems that were completely contrary to its basic teachings. Nobody ever denied this; they just found ways to accept it. In the next world…, we are all fallen…, well, in theory that’s great, but as a practical matter…
February 1, 2005 at 3:31 am
Why not create another myth? New brands of toothpaste are introduced all the time. They don’t need to be completely different; just a little different – a more minty taste, a smoother gel, whatever makes you brush more is ok. And why not?
Dr. Deming says the way to perfection is slow, consistent incremental improvements. Why not apply this to philosophy and morality. Given the fact that we’re atheists, there ain’t gonna be no dramatic redemption with the apocalyptic verve of a second coming. There are just small incremental improvements in our mood and our attitude towards each other. This is all we’ve got; so it better be enough.
And I can prove you wrong; on the way home I imagined for at least one whole afternoon that I might be the next guy; so I better be nice. If the story gets told, the meme might grow. That would be incrementally – a good thing.
BTW, great picture.
-T
February 1, 2005 at 3:40 am
Pretty good riposte!
February 1, 2005 at 2:51 pm
Oh, and another thing – take a look at your blog’s name!
How fitting!
This is my blog, just a few days old: http://socrata.mindsay.com/
February 8, 2005 at 1:57 am
Dear Lichanos:
Since I am the subject of your discussion entitled “Upside down and . . .” , I must begin by thanking you for listening so attentively and thoughtfully, and for your generally complimentary tone. I should also return the compliment by noting that, in general, I find your postings very well thought out and very well phrased.
Now: let’s get down to work.
You give a very good short summary of my talk, managing to reduce a half-hour lecture to five clear sentences. (For those people who want to read the whole thing, it should be posted soon at ethicalculture.org.) The first question you ask is,
why did I bother to approach the question of social justice by creating a myth?
No, I am under no illusion that the mere existence of the myth will convert a great many evil people into good people. (It was great, however, to learn that “T”, who posted a riposte to your essay, claims to have been at least temporarily inspired to ethical choices by thinking about my one-soul myth.) As I mentioned in my talk, I offer the myth as a formal compromise between utilitarianism and Rawlsian ethics.
I’m trying to see if there isn’t a simple and clear way to formulate the difference between right and wrong that avoids enslaving the individual to the group, or the group to the individual.
To speak candidly, the Christian myth is certainly not “good enough.” The Christian myth assumes that the principle of retributivism is so unquestionable that it cannot be suspended even by God Himself — all God can do is evade retributivism by employing a vicarious sacrifice. Perhaps the most important work done by the one-soul myth is to call into question the principle of retributivism.
As you note, I offer the one-soul myth purely as a hypothetical, not as a serious factual claim. For the reasons stated in my essay, “Free Will: The Last Great Lie” (also available at ethicalculture.org), I do maintain that determinism is the most reasonable scientific hypothesis at this time. There is therefore no contradiction between my using a myth
as the basis for ethical analysis, and my mentioning that there is a factual as well as an ethical problem
with retributivism (namely, the fact that there’s no reason to think we have free will).
I am not under the “illusion that morality . . .
can be demonstrated from first principles.” There is
no way to prove that it is a morally superior choice
to act as though the one-soul myth were true. But
neither do I feel that all ethical argument is a waste
of time. There are at least a few people, here and there, who can be goaded into fresh thought on ethics by pointing out that something they had previously accepted without thought is contrary to the greatest good of the greatest number, or contrary to the Golden Rule. In general, I wish to point out to everyone that retribution for its own sake is (1) a deadweight loss to the greatest good of the greatest number,
(2) a deadweight loss to Rawls’ protected class, and (3) contrary to the sort of Golden Rule analysis I offer in the one-soul myth. In other words, it’s ethically wrong. It is therefore curious that retributivism continues to be accepted by virtually all liberals as well as virtually all conservatives.
Even at my lecture before the Ethical Culture society, a very progressive group, the leader of that society responded to my talk by trying to put in a good word for retributivism!
All the best,
Bob Gulack
February 8, 2005 at 2:59 pm
Well, I agree that ethical argument is not a waste of time, How else are we going to make choices? And, on reflection, I can see why a new myth might be of value in spurring new ideas. As ‘T’ says, there are new toothpastes all the time! Touche. I guess my gripe is with this statement by BG:
—-
“I’m trying to see if there isn’t a simple and clear way to formulate the difference between right and wrong that avoids enslaving the individual to the group, or the group to the individual.”
—-
Fundamentally, I just reject this program. “Simple way” is the key phrase here. I don’t think there is a simple way. Geometry is simple, ethics are not. I guess it comes down to a basic difference of opinion about the power (not the value) of reason in human affairs. Or rather, the power of deductive reason. I think that’s the point that Joe C. was making in his comment, rather than a plug for retributionist ethics.
February 9, 2005 at 2:16 am
You appear to be convinced there is something inherently complex about ethics, so that the attempt to find anything simple to say about ethics is foredoomed to failure. Certainly, one cannot spell out, in advance, the right way to act in every conceivable situation. But why is there something inherently misleading about trying to point out that ethics has to do with showing others (present and future) the same consideration you would like to be shown?
BG
February 9, 2005 at 1:59 pm
No, I’m all for making simple clear statements about ethics, the Golden Rule being one good example. True, you can’t spell everything out in advance. But no, false, you cannot make simple statements to JUSTIFY these positions.
Stating the Golden Rule is simple. Getting people to buy into can be maddeningly difficult. Either they get it or they don’t. If they don’t, argument never seems to work. Why they don’t, and why they sometimes end up getting it after all, is a difficult, complex, and mysterious thing to understand I think, and it touches on the limits of reason in social life. It has a lot to do with the mix of experience (call it empiricism), deduction, emotion, etc. that make up our mental states.
February 10, 2005 at 2:50 am
Alright, I have something simple to say about ethics:
In this myth, considering the exploding human population, isn’t the single soul getting sliced rather thin? Or would it be diluted? haha
It’s actually no fun to mix up the metaphorical and the literal here since you plainly state up front that you’re making this all up. (No factual claims, etc.)
But, weirder things have happened then the following:
1. The myth is picked up here by the smart folks who read this blog;
2. It grows as a tongue-in cheek metaphor justifying goodness as intended for a few generations;
3. Some less-imaginative folk who dislike metaphor begin to take it literally (a favorite theme of Joseph Campbell I think) ;
4. Bob becomes deified.
Now that would be funny!
But on a more serious note: please explain why the lease on the soul doesn’t extend to non-human animals (a favorite theme of mine) as in the older reincarnation myths.
Thanks.
- T
February 10, 2005 at 4:28 am
1. The soul doesn’t become sliced thin or diluted because it’s only in one body at one time, so to speak — it’s on subsequent, separate trips through this time period that my soul will eventually become T and then Lichanos, our gracious host.
2. I have no serious objections to being deified, if that’s how things work out. For one thing, my wife believes there may be significant financial advantages.
3. I avoided including animals or plants because of the enormous complications that would add to the theory — quite detailed explanations would be necessary even to explain why we have the right to be
vegetarians. (It is not the fact that animals allegedly don’t anticipate being eaten that makes it
all right to eat animals, for two reasons: first, because many animals do, in fact, anticipate foul play from humans and, second, because we would find it wrong for Martians to eat us even if the Martians arranged that we would not anticipate being eaten.) In general, however, while I am not a practicing vegetarian, I do believe that mammals have a strong claim on ethical rights and that vegetarianism is therefore a safer policy philosophically.
BG
April 23, 2005 at 8:36 pm
another test….