Tweet
In countless discussions on morality/ethics, both in real life and on the internet, I have observed running through them all a single common thread. It is that the judgements are all pre-made - the discussion is only on how to justify them. Or, to put it more harshly, it is prejudice against prejudice.
It is prejudice of a rather unique form, and is best elaborated upon by Nietzsche in the first chapter of his book, "Beyond Good and Evil", titled "The Prejudices of the Philosophers". It is not possible to cover that whole topic here, so I will not try. Instead, I shall attempt to make it clear by using a few examples.
The first example is that which is highly controversial - that of the permissibility of passing judgement on different cultures, and the relative values of different cultures. This is a topic of active discussion and debate, sometimes heated, and is directly relevant to the futures of many countries in Europe, due to immigration situation. In this case, there is almost no questioning going on - both sides are arguing completely based on what they perceive the outcome of the current situation (in addition to the policies they advocate/oppose) will be.
The second example is less controversial. Insofar as the position of women (or blacks, or Muslims, or .....) is concerned, it is modern dogma that they should be accorded the same rights as men. The discussion of any such topic is always about dealing with the changes in culture, such as the treatment of some group by non-state agents within the law, or the cultural portrayal of the same. Their eligibility for equal rights is never questioned seriously - and if it is, then it is usually by what I would call the fringe, and then it usually in service to some different agenda or dogma. When I say question in this context, I mean exactly that - honestly question. Usually, such questioning is either a precursor to, or form of, an attack. What I refer to here is nothing of the sort - it is simply, out of curiosity, asking "Why?" when faced with a statement of the said group's eligibility for equal rights, and gently repeating that question when some justification for that position is trotted out, until the root of the matter is reached.
The final example has no controversy whatsoever: murder. It is universally acknowledged that murder is wrong. The question "Why is it wrong to kill people?" sounds as ridiculous as "Why are beautiful things beautiful?" or "Why is A A?". Asking "Why?" of this idea sounds preposterous.
However, the more evident an idea appears, the harder it is to justify. If, for instance, asked why women should have equal rights, some answers invoke the concept of the rights of all humans, and others that of utility. When "Why?" is applied to these same examples, however, no satisfactory answers are forthcoming. When "Why?" is applied a sufficient number of times, the response always finally boils down to "You're human, aren't you?". In the multiculturalism example, the chain is not very clear. In the case of womens' (or other groups') rights, it's simpler, visible. And in the case of the example relating to murder, it is generally not the last but the first response.
In the spirit of enquiry, therefore, I ask of my readers - Why?
Why should I agree with you on the issue of cultures - whatever your stance be?
Why should blacks/Muslims/women/ have (or not have, if that is what you believe) equal rights?
Why is murder wrong?
It may be offensive that such questions could even be raised - the ones in the middle of the controversy spectrum are the ones which are most rage-inducing - and it may be insulting to have your deepest convictions about right and wrong called nothing more that prejudices - but until you justify them, that is exactly what they are. You have to start from foundations, or first principles - no dodging, for example, by invoking "universal human rights", because then you'll have to answer the "Why?" question to that.
I have found this to be an interesting philosophical exercise. The object is not to attempt to "solve" the questions being considered with some definitive answer - so I request that we not derail the discussion into any specific topic - but to examine why we hold the beliefs we do, and to what depth we are capable of justifying them.
It is prejudice of a rather unique form, and is best elaborated upon by Nietzsche in the first chapter of his book, "Beyond Good and Evil", titled "The Prejudices of the Philosophers". It is not possible to cover that whole topic here, so I will not try. Instead, I shall attempt to make it clear by using a few examples.
The first example is that which is highly controversial - that of the permissibility of passing judgement on different cultures, and the relative values of different cultures. This is a topic of active discussion and debate, sometimes heated, and is directly relevant to the futures of many countries in Europe, due to immigration situation. In this case, there is almost no questioning going on - both sides are arguing completely based on what they perceive the outcome of the current situation (in addition to the policies they advocate/oppose) will be.
The second example is less controversial. Insofar as the position of women (or blacks, or Muslims, or .....) is concerned, it is modern dogma that they should be accorded the same rights as men. The discussion of any such topic is always about dealing with the changes in culture, such as the treatment of some group by non-state agents within the law, or the cultural portrayal of the same. Their eligibility for equal rights is never questioned seriously - and if it is, then it is usually by what I would call the fringe, and then it usually in service to some different agenda or dogma. When I say question in this context, I mean exactly that - honestly question. Usually, such questioning is either a precursor to, or form of, an attack. What I refer to here is nothing of the sort - it is simply, out of curiosity, asking "Why?" when faced with a statement of the said group's eligibility for equal rights, and gently repeating that question when some justification for that position is trotted out, until the root of the matter is reached.
The final example has no controversy whatsoever: murder. It is universally acknowledged that murder is wrong. The question "Why is it wrong to kill people?" sounds as ridiculous as "Why are beautiful things beautiful?" or "Why is A A?". Asking "Why?" of this idea sounds preposterous.
However, the more evident an idea appears, the harder it is to justify. If, for instance, asked why women should have equal rights, some answers invoke the concept of the rights of all humans, and others that of utility. When "Why?" is applied to these same examples, however, no satisfactory answers are forthcoming. When "Why?" is applied a sufficient number of times, the response always finally boils down to "You're human, aren't you?". In the multiculturalism example, the chain is not very clear. In the case of womens' (or other groups') rights, it's simpler, visible. And in the case of the example relating to murder, it is generally not the last but the first response.
In the spirit of enquiry, therefore, I ask of my readers - Why?
Why should I agree with you on the issue of cultures - whatever your stance be?
Why should blacks/Muslims/women/
Why is murder wrong?
It may be offensive that such questions could even be raised - the ones in the middle of the controversy spectrum are the ones which are most rage-inducing - and it may be insulting to have your deepest convictions about right and wrong called nothing more that prejudices - but until you justify them, that is exactly what they are. You have to start from foundations, or first principles - no dodging, for example, by invoking "universal human rights", because then you'll have to answer the "Why?" question to that.
I have found this to be an interesting philosophical exercise. The object is not to attempt to "solve" the questions being considered with some definitive answer - so I request that we not derail the discussion into any specific topic - but to examine why we hold the beliefs we do, and to what depth we are capable of justifying them.
Comment