In this column, I want to establish that the mature Christian mind is best protected against propaganda.
Last year, as I watched in disgust as so many Americans were mesmerized by Obama's frighteningly dark drivel, I read Jacques Ellul's 'Propaganda'. Much rang true, but I didn't have much background to question his evidence.
As I've mulled over how people choose to believe what they believe, I was reminded of some passages in his book. He describes modern man as such:
Above all he is a victim of emptiness-he is a man devoid of meaning. He is very busy, but he is emotionally empty, open to all entreaties and in search of only one thing - something to fill his inner void.
The main point to my four part series on rationality was that people choose to believe the most emotionally satisfying answers. Furthermore, I believe that our ability to ascertain the true nature of reality is when we have little emotional stake in the answer. If we emotionally need an answer to be true we will rationalize and even lie to ourselves to satisfy those emotional needs. In general, if we are emotionally needy people, our ability to adhere to reality is diminished.
What I propose, and it will be left unproved until later posts, is that Christianity provides the ultimate path to emotional satisfaction because it prescribes optimal human behavior. This optimal human behavior is what I call morality. Reality, as described by Christianity, I will call the Truth.
If one rejects the Truth, one must be accepting a disreality, a non-truth, or more simply, a set of lies. By pursuing a path that is suboptimal, one will inevitably suffer. The pain we suffer because we have chosen to believe a disreality while living in reality wounds us emotionally. The inevitability of pursuing a disreality is emotional emptiness. This emptiness, as Ellul points out, leads one to believe more lies and more propaganda.
Empty people will fall prey to propaganda. Inevitably they will be ruled by the propagandizers. The emptier they are, the more brutal the rule over them will be. They will be imprisoned by the lies they have told themselves to assuage their emptiness. It truly is a hell of their own making.
Only the emotionally satisfied mind can see reality as it is. And, as I propose, only the Christian mind can be fully emotionally satisfied.
Showing posts with label Morality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Morality. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Monday, October 26, 2009
Altruism, A Few More Comments
Storm Jingram requested that I expound on my criticism of Altruism in my last post.
Inherent to calling any act an "altruistic" one, is the belief that the act has no value to the actor. It is easy to conceive that many "atruistic" acts are indirectly beneficial, such as building a good reputation or interpersonal trust, but I've helped people out before in secret and still felt a rush of joy. Our minds may simply be hardwired to enjoy simple acts of kindness.
The problem with Altruism and other forms of morality is that there is an implicit compulsion to do those acts. It's not that you simply enjoy doing them, it's that you MUST do them if you are to be a "good" person. People will cast shame on people who don't practice "altruism". Isn't it a little ironic to use manipulation to coerce acts that produce happiness? This compulsion, this guilt, drains the joy out of the act. In the end, we are left with less kindness and less joy.
Replace "You Must" with "You Can" and it will make all the difference.
Inherent to calling any act an "altruistic" one, is the belief that the act has no value to the actor. It is easy to conceive that many "atruistic" acts are indirectly beneficial, such as building a good reputation or interpersonal trust, but I've helped people out before in secret and still felt a rush of joy. Our minds may simply be hardwired to enjoy simple acts of kindness.
The problem with Altruism and other forms of morality is that there is an implicit compulsion to do those acts. It's not that you simply enjoy doing them, it's that you MUST do them if you are to be a "good" person. People will cast shame on people who don't practice "altruism". Isn't it a little ironic to use manipulation to coerce acts that produce happiness? This compulsion, this guilt, drains the joy out of the act. In the end, we are left with less kindness and less joy.
Replace "You Must" with "You Can" and it will make all the difference.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Altruism, Why Is This a Virtue?
Why is altruism a virtue? Defined as the act of doing for others when no reward is apparent. This idea is not just silly, it's damaging. Its effect on us all is recidivistic.
Inherent to the definition is that altruistic acts have no reward. If an elderly woman drops an object and I help her pick it up, have I suffered loss? Have I lost value to myself only to help her out? Can I not be motivated by joy? Can I love my neighbor, not out of moral compulsion, but because the act itself is inextricably linked to the reward of joy? If we continue to obsess that there is no reward then we kill the motivation to love. Altruism is a cancer.
What about heroism? Can we not be devoted to people, to a cause, with such euphoric passion that danger fades as a pressing concern? An idea can be more valuable than our lives. Why have we deified death as the ultimate arbiter of our actions? Remember that great man from history who changed the world because he made certain of his safety at all times? Of course not. The opposite of danger is not safety, it's boredom. Why would we discourage heroism by claiming it has no reward?
Altruism is a sham, and it blinds us to the possibilities of the human experience.
Inherent to the definition is that altruistic acts have no reward. If an elderly woman drops an object and I help her pick it up, have I suffered loss? Have I lost value to myself only to help her out? Can I not be motivated by joy? Can I love my neighbor, not out of moral compulsion, but because the act itself is inextricably linked to the reward of joy? If we continue to obsess that there is no reward then we kill the motivation to love. Altruism is a cancer.
What about heroism? Can we not be devoted to people, to a cause, with such euphoric passion that danger fades as a pressing concern? An idea can be more valuable than our lives. Why have we deified death as the ultimate arbiter of our actions? Remember that great man from history who changed the world because he made certain of his safety at all times? Of course not. The opposite of danger is not safety, it's boredom. Why would we discourage heroism by claiming it has no reward?
Altruism is a sham, and it blinds us to the possibilities of the human experience.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Another Nice Example of Moral Manipulation
Sam Kiley of the British paper The Times, illustrates in this article an example of moral manipulation when it comes to procuring aid for Africa.
Aid organisations and the media have inflated the scale of subsequent horror, regardless of the truth. This year the International Rescue Committee released data from its Democratic Republic of the Congo mortality survey. “Congo’s war and aftermath have killed 5.4 million,” The Washington Post yelled, quoting the IRC. Humbug.
The IRC isn’t deliberately lying, neither was the Post. But the idea that 5.4 million people have died as a result of war in Congo is nonsense. It needs to be peddled to help to generate funds to relieve the real and hideous suffering of Congo’s population, but nonsense it remains. As the IRC admits: “Less than 10 per cent of all deaths were due to violence, with most attributed to easily preventable and treatable conditions such as malaria, diarrhoea, pneumonia and malnutrition.”
The IRC is saying, really, that the Congolese are dying because they are poor. Recent work by André Lambert and Louis Lohlé-Tart shows that the rising mortality rate predates the wars there. But combine “war’’ with “millions dead’’ and you have a donation-winning headline We all do it. We use statistics to highlight the horrors in Africa to drive home the unbelievable scale of the continent’s problems. But that’s the problem: the scale has become unbelievable. Twenty-three million? From my experience of two decades’ reporting from Africa, I can say with absolute confidence that this is humbug. Did anyone count them? No.
Here in lies the problem with making a moral plea. If at first you don't succeed at sufficiently manipulating people's behavior, exaggerate. Employ some shock and awe. The flip side, as he states is that the numbers become unbelievable. When we exaggerate a moral claim, we risk that our audience rejects us carte blanche. Instead of realizing that we are exaggerating they will think we are wrong. So lunacy becomes acceptable and the truth becomes offensive.
P.S. Go back and read the article, because he does make some solid points about the use of food aid in Africa.
Aid organisations and the media have inflated the scale of subsequent horror, regardless of the truth. This year the International Rescue Committee released data from its Democratic Republic of the Congo mortality survey. “Congo’s war and aftermath have killed 5.4 million,” The Washington Post yelled, quoting the IRC. Humbug.
The IRC isn’t deliberately lying, neither was the Post. But the idea that 5.4 million people have died as a result of war in Congo is nonsense. It needs to be peddled to help to generate funds to relieve the real and hideous suffering of Congo’s population, but nonsense it remains. As the IRC admits: “Less than 10 per cent of all deaths were due to violence, with most attributed to easily preventable and treatable conditions such as malaria, diarrhoea, pneumonia and malnutrition.”
The IRC is saying, really, that the Congolese are dying because they are poor. Recent work by André Lambert and Louis Lohlé-Tart shows that the rising mortality rate predates the wars there. But combine “war’’ with “millions dead’’ and you have a donation-winning headline We all do it. We use statistics to highlight the horrors in Africa to drive home the unbelievable scale of the continent’s problems. But that’s the problem: the scale has become unbelievable. Twenty-three million? From my experience of two decades’ reporting from Africa, I can say with absolute confidence that this is humbug. Did anyone count them? No.
Here in lies the problem with making a moral plea. If at first you don't succeed at sufficiently manipulating people's behavior, exaggerate. Employ some shock and awe. The flip side, as he states is that the numbers become unbelievable. When we exaggerate a moral claim, we risk that our audience rejects us carte blanche. Instead of realizing that we are exaggerating they will think we are wrong. So lunacy becomes acceptable and the truth becomes offensive.
P.S. Go back and read the article, because he does make some solid points about the use of food aid in Africa.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Spinning our Wheels
After a good talk with a good friend last night, I was convinced to break down my comments on morality and manipulation a little more. Hopefully, a few concise posts will help more understand.
Conclusion: Any concept that we are making moral progress or that humanity is moving towards some more perfect moral existence is false.
First, all morality is based on presuppositions. Thanks to some of our diligent atheist friends we know that there is no ultimate truth. All of these presuppositions are subject to doubt. None, are self-evident. These moral truths are only true because we choose to believe the presuppositions. These moral truths are only as true as we want them to be.
Secondly, the selection process of morals is endemically corrupted by the desire for power and status. Either the moral behavior serves the interest of the one making the argument, or the very act of making a successful moral argument serves to give status to the talented orator. Moral truths are not chosen through an altruistic search for truth, but to serve the interests of individuals. How can they be finding truth, when there is no truth?
No utopia, based on moral enlightenment, can ever come. Our human experience is becoming more comfortable, but it is not becoming more moral.
Conclusion: Any concept that we are making moral progress or that humanity is moving towards some more perfect moral existence is false.
First, all morality is based on presuppositions. Thanks to some of our diligent atheist friends we know that there is no ultimate truth. All of these presuppositions are subject to doubt. None, are self-evident. These moral truths are only true because we choose to believe the presuppositions. These moral truths are only as true as we want them to be.
Secondly, the selection process of morals is endemically corrupted by the desire for power and status. Either the moral behavior serves the interest of the one making the argument, or the very act of making a successful moral argument serves to give status to the talented orator. Moral truths are not chosen through an altruistic search for truth, but to serve the interests of individuals. How can they be finding truth, when there is no truth?
No utopia, based on moral enlightenment, can ever come. Our human experience is becoming more comfortable, but it is not becoming more moral.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
George Will Sees the Manipulation
In his Sunday column, columnist George Will takes note of the poor discourse on health care/insurance in this country. Its a clash of rights claims and moral claims. "We have a right to...and if you don't see this self-evident truth then you are a..." Insert expletive here.
The use of moral absolutes has become so diluted and abused that it's not working anymore. What once held significant manipulative sway, just doesn't pack the same punch. We can see their manipulations from a mile away and we're having none of it. Morality is manipulation.
Here's Mr. Will,
If our vocabulary is composed exclusively of references to rights, aka entitlements, we are condemned to endless jostling among elbow-throwing individuals irritably determined to protect, or enlarge, the boundaries of their rights. Among such people, all political discourse tends to be distilled to what Mary Ann Glendon of Harvard Law School calls "rights talk."
Witness the inability of people nowadays to recommend this or that health care policy as merely wise or just. Each proposal must be invested with the dignity of a right. And since not all proposals are compatible, you have not merely differences of opinion but apocalyptic clashes of rights.
Rights talk is inherently aggressive, even imperial; it tends toward moral inflation and militates against accommodation. Rights talkers, with their inner monologues of pre-emptive resentments, work themselves into a simmering state of annoyed vigilance against any limits on their willfulness. To rights talkers, life -- always and everywhere -- is unbearably congested with insufferable people impertinently rights talking, and behaving, the way you and I of course have a real right to.
Hmmm..I wonder why would people throw elbows to expand their rights? It couldn't be that they are using morality as a tool of manipulation to gain more power and status?
The use of moral absolutes has become so diluted and abused that it's not working anymore. What once held significant manipulative sway, just doesn't pack the same punch. We can see their manipulations from a mile away and we're having none of it. Morality is manipulation.
Here's Mr. Will,
If our vocabulary is composed exclusively of references to rights, aka entitlements, we are condemned to endless jostling among elbow-throwing individuals irritably determined to protect, or enlarge, the boundaries of their rights. Among such people, all political discourse tends to be distilled to what Mary Ann Glendon of Harvard Law School calls "rights talk."
Witness the inability of people nowadays to recommend this or that health care policy as merely wise or just. Each proposal must be invested with the dignity of a right. And since not all proposals are compatible, you have not merely differences of opinion but apocalyptic clashes of rights.
Rights talk is inherently aggressive, even imperial; it tends toward moral inflation and militates against accommodation. Rights talkers, with their inner monologues of pre-emptive resentments, work themselves into a simmering state of annoyed vigilance against any limits on their willfulness. To rights talkers, life -- always and everywhere -- is unbearably congested with insufferable people impertinently rights talking, and behaving, the way you and I of course have a real right to.
Hmmm..I wonder why would people throw elbows to expand their rights? It couldn't be that they are using morality as a tool of manipulation to gain more power and status?
Monday, October 5, 2009
Understanding Paul
I've written a few posts now about Christianity without much mention of scripture, so here it is. My favorite book in the Bible, being Romans, is often difficult to understand, but I have found it extremely enjoyable to reread over and over again. Every time I'm exposed to a new philosophy I go back and find it even more compelling than the last time.
First, let me provide a couple definitions - "the law" - the moral system passed down in the Jewish tradition - "sin" - error as a result of man's inherent naivete/hubris
In Romans 7: 7-11, Paul captures the points I've been making about the failure of morality:
"What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, 'Do not covet.' But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire."
Paul is stating that the focus on the law took his eyes off of understanding what is beneficial and instead focused it on the law itself. The moral law itself was leading him to do that which is not beneficial. He continues...
"For apart from law, sin is dead. Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death."
He goes on in verses 14-24 to speak how he struggles in a tug of war between the good that he can see and sense, but he is bound by the slavery to the law.
14 "We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. 16For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good." [He struggles to do the good that he can sense]...18.."For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out."
23 "but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members." [He can see what is beneficial, but morality works against that.]
and finally, in verses 24 through 8:1-4, he begins to show us the way out.
What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God - through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.
Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus [no longer bound by morality], because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit"
The law, or morality, is no longer necessary because Christ has demostrated that everything the law has tried to manipulate us into doing could be done without it. Perfect goodness, doesn't need morality, only humility.
First, let me provide a couple definitions - "the law" - the moral system passed down in the Jewish tradition - "sin" - error as a result of man's inherent naivete/hubris
In Romans 7: 7-11, Paul captures the points I've been making about the failure of morality:
"What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, 'Do not covet.' But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire."
Paul is stating that the focus on the law took his eyes off of understanding what is beneficial and instead focused it on the law itself. The moral law itself was leading him to do that which is not beneficial. He continues...
"For apart from law, sin is dead. Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death."
He goes on in verses 14-24 to speak how he struggles in a tug of war between the good that he can see and sense, but he is bound by the slavery to the law.
14 "We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. 16For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good." [He struggles to do the good that he can sense]...18.."For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out."
23 "but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members." [He can see what is beneficial, but morality works against that.]
and finally, in verses 24 through 8:1-4, he begins to show us the way out.
What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God - through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.
Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus [no longer bound by morality], because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit"
The law, or morality, is no longer necessary because Christ has demostrated that everything the law has tried to manipulate us into doing could be done without it. Perfect goodness, doesn't need morality, only humility.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
A Christian Should be a Skeptic
It has been ingrained in the minds of many anti-intellectual Christians to fear the words doubt and skepticism, but we are damaging ourselves by not employing them more often. Not only do we fail to deepen our own faith, but we hurt our desire for intimacy with God by not being suspicious of what "the world" as it is called, teaches us.
The renowned skeptic, Neitzsche, says in his "Beyond Good and Evil":
"All the moralities that address themselves to the individual, for the sake of his "happiness", as one says - what are they but counsels for behavior in relation to the degree of dangerousness in which the individual lives with himself; recipes against his passions, his good and bad inclinations...little and great prudences and artifices that exude the nook odor of old nostrums and of the wisdom of old women"
Modern Evangelical Christian culture teaches us to nudge each other, especially our kids, towards a higher "morality" by appealing to self interest. The underlying premise being that achieving Christian morality leads to a higher level of happiness. Don't look at girls that way or you will ruin your future marriage. Don't dress like that or all the dregs and perverts will fool you and seduce you. I think that Neitzsche captures this situation pretty well.
I have met plenty of Christians, and experienced personally for myself, who wondered why they were not that happy even though they had managed to quell many of their passions and were living according to much of the Christian code of morality. The problem is simple, and I will use the moral formula from an earlier post again.
A is true, and B is true, so action C is a moral behavior.
The underlying assumption that the Christian has made is that obeying the moral constraint leads to happiness. This is the folly. The Christian must believe that behavior C is beneficial on it's own. While many Christians will claim that they believe that C is indeed beneficial, they also simultaneously believe that NOT C is also beneficial. This belief that C and NOT C are both beneficial is the real problem. It is not a lack of faith in A and B, but a lack of skepticism on NOT C.
As an example:
I hate cauliflower and I love steak. Do I need will power to choose steak over cauliflower? Not at all. I know that I like steak more than cauliflower in every possible situation. I also like Dr. Pepper. I like it too much and drink it too often. In fact, I'm on a no Dr.Pepper diet currently. I like the weight I lose when I quit drinking Dr. Pepper, but I also really like the taste of it. I've gone on and off Dr. Pepper several times over the last ten years, but I've obviously never quit forever.
My problem is that both drinking it and not drinking provides happiness (or utility), but the rewards are mutually exclusive. As long as Dr. Pepper remains my indulgence of choice and my remedy for tiredness, its grip will stay tight. Does it really wake me up? Is it really as refreshing as I think or has clever marketing made me believe this? Is it a placebo effect? I'm not sure, but I know that skepticism is my way out.
Now to the main point. In my lifetime the presentation of consequence-free and unbridled sexual activity has been one of the most pervasive points of contention. Is it true? We are presented with information that as long as we use protection it's only our moral hangups that prevent us from enjoying this unequaled pleasure. How can we know that the self interest of the "authorities" isn't clouding their analysis? Does it give them power and status for us to believe them?
Much like the Christian will at times get a rush of euphoria from conquering a sinful behavior, is it also possible that the status and ego boost given to us through a sexual conquest really mask a growing emptiness. Much like the Christian who is purging sinful desires in hopes of recapturing that temporary bliss, is the sexual conquistador on the same path, hoping that the next conquest will satiate that growing sense of purposelessness? Is it an endless path of constantly chasing the next temporary high?
The rest of the world is skeptical of Christian ideals, but are we skeptical of theirs? Do we actively tear down what they preach? Do we demand proof? Should we hide our children from "the world" or should we mock its self serving manipulation?
The renowned skeptic, Neitzsche, says in his "Beyond Good and Evil":
"All the moralities that address themselves to the individual, for the sake of his "happiness", as one says - what are they but counsels for behavior in relation to the degree of dangerousness in which the individual lives with himself; recipes against his passions, his good and bad inclinations...little and great prudences and artifices that exude the nook odor of old nostrums and of the wisdom of old women"
Modern Evangelical Christian culture teaches us to nudge each other, especially our kids, towards a higher "morality" by appealing to self interest. The underlying premise being that achieving Christian morality leads to a higher level of happiness. Don't look at girls that way or you will ruin your future marriage. Don't dress like that or all the dregs and perverts will fool you and seduce you. I think that Neitzsche captures this situation pretty well.
I have met plenty of Christians, and experienced personally for myself, who wondered why they were not that happy even though they had managed to quell many of their passions and were living according to much of the Christian code of morality. The problem is simple, and I will use the moral formula from an earlier post again.
A is true, and B is true, so action C is a moral behavior.
The underlying assumption that the Christian has made is that obeying the moral constraint leads to happiness. This is the folly. The Christian must believe that behavior C is beneficial on it's own. While many Christians will claim that they believe that C is indeed beneficial, they also simultaneously believe that NOT C is also beneficial. This belief that C and NOT C are both beneficial is the real problem. It is not a lack of faith in A and B, but a lack of skepticism on NOT C.
As an example:
I hate cauliflower and I love steak. Do I need will power to choose steak over cauliflower? Not at all. I know that I like steak more than cauliflower in every possible situation. I also like Dr. Pepper. I like it too much and drink it too often. In fact, I'm on a no Dr.Pepper diet currently. I like the weight I lose when I quit drinking Dr. Pepper, but I also really like the taste of it. I've gone on and off Dr. Pepper several times over the last ten years, but I've obviously never quit forever.
My problem is that both drinking it and not drinking provides happiness (or utility), but the rewards are mutually exclusive. As long as Dr. Pepper remains my indulgence of choice and my remedy for tiredness, its grip will stay tight. Does it really wake me up? Is it really as refreshing as I think or has clever marketing made me believe this? Is it a placebo effect? I'm not sure, but I know that skepticism is my way out.
Now to the main point. In my lifetime the presentation of consequence-free and unbridled sexual activity has been one of the most pervasive points of contention. Is it true? We are presented with information that as long as we use protection it's only our moral hangups that prevent us from enjoying this unequaled pleasure. How can we know that the self interest of the "authorities" isn't clouding their analysis? Does it give them power and status for us to believe them?
Much like the Christian will at times get a rush of euphoria from conquering a sinful behavior, is it also possible that the status and ego boost given to us through a sexual conquest really mask a growing emptiness. Much like the Christian who is purging sinful desires in hopes of recapturing that temporary bliss, is the sexual conquistador on the same path, hoping that the next conquest will satiate that growing sense of purposelessness? Is it an endless path of constantly chasing the next temporary high?
The rest of the world is skeptical of Christian ideals, but are we skeptical of theirs? Do we actively tear down what they preach? Do we demand proof? Should we hide our children from "the world" or should we mock its self serving manipulation?
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Morality is Manipulation, Part II
In part I, discussed how an individual can break down moral boundaries by casting doubt on the underlying presuppositions. Now for the manipulation. Not only are morals susceptible from within a person, they are suspectible to attack from outside as well.
Using the same formula as before:
A is true, and B is true, so action C is a moral behavior.
Not every person has the same mental capacity or the same zeal for rigorous intellectual pursuit of consistent logical behavior. Because of this, some are better at changing minds and others are more likely to have their minds changed. Those who are better I will call "authorities" and those who have their minds changed I will call "followers".
The problem is that authorities are not altruistic, and in regards to spreading the one objectively true morality (A and B) they may balk because it doesn't serve their interests or preferences. If it is in the interest of authority figure X that follower Y not practice behavior C, X will use its authority power to persuade Y not to practice behavior C. Moral laws break down because they do not serve the interest of the authorities. Follower Y is not aware that they are serving the interest of authority figure X, only that the authority figures makes sense.
Jesus saves his anger for authority figures alone. The Pharisees and the "Teachers of the Law" lord their expertise over their people and coerce them to beleive and practice things that serve to maintain the status, power, and wealth of the authority figures. Jesus eviscerates them on several occassions. As for today we have "name it and claim it" preachers, media propagandists, and Global Warming theorists :)
Other forms of blatant manipulation come to mind, but we all, in subtle ways practice this. Parenting is the profession of this practice. How do I get my son not to hit the other son? Moral imperitive. How do I keep them out of the street? A car WILL hit you (with high probability). It's exaggeration, manipulation, and a whole menagerie of half-truths and cliches. If anyone has any better ideas please let me know.
Morality breaks down because talents are dispersed. If we assume that the strong will accumulate more resources by the sweat of their brow, and that the smart and industrious will join them by focusing their faculties, then we must accept that the crafty and surreptitious will do it by changing our morals through manipulation.
Using the same formula as before:
A is true, and B is true, so action C is a moral behavior.
Not every person has the same mental capacity or the same zeal for rigorous intellectual pursuit of consistent logical behavior. Because of this, some are better at changing minds and others are more likely to have their minds changed. Those who are better I will call "authorities" and those who have their minds changed I will call "followers".
The problem is that authorities are not altruistic, and in regards to spreading the one objectively true morality (A and B) they may balk because it doesn't serve their interests or preferences. If it is in the interest of authority figure X that follower Y not practice behavior C, X will use its authority power to persuade Y not to practice behavior C. Moral laws break down because they do not serve the interest of the authorities. Follower Y is not aware that they are serving the interest of authority figure X, only that the authority figures makes sense.
Jesus saves his anger for authority figures alone. The Pharisees and the "Teachers of the Law" lord their expertise over their people and coerce them to beleive and practice things that serve to maintain the status, power, and wealth of the authority figures. Jesus eviscerates them on several occassions. As for today we have "name it and claim it" preachers, media propagandists, and Global Warming theorists :)
Other forms of blatant manipulation come to mind, but we all, in subtle ways practice this. Parenting is the profession of this practice. How do I get my son not to hit the other son? Moral imperitive. How do I keep them out of the street? A car WILL hit you (with high probability). It's exaggeration, manipulation, and a whole menagerie of half-truths and cliches. If anyone has any better ideas please let me know.
Morality breaks down because talents are dispersed. If we assume that the strong will accumulate more resources by the sweat of their brow, and that the smart and industrious will join them by focusing their faculties, then we must accept that the crafty and surreptitious will do it by changing our morals through manipulation.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Morality is Manipulation, Part I
This is the second in my basic fundamentals of Christianity. Whereas the previous post was benign, this one should exasperate you if you really understand what I'm saying. Morality and moral laws, as humans use it, is nothing more than manipulation. First, however, let me criticize moral laws in general.
Moral logic, in general, follows this pattern:
A is true, and B is true, so action C is a moral behavior.
A traditional Christian moralist would like say it like this:
God gave us his law, God is the ultimate judge, so actions prescribed in that law are moral behaviors.
If this were an immutable truth there would be little room sin. Traditional Christianity paints any rejection of this as mere rebellion, but there are other more fundamental problems.
What if someone doubts that God exists? What if the Bible isn't perfectly clear on defining action C? The moral compulsion breaks down. Sprinkle a little skepticism on A, B, and C, and the moral law fails.
More universally, any set of A, B, and C is subject to doubt. If someone doesn't want to do action C, know that they will dedicate their energies to casting doubt on A and B.
A more experienced logician will claim that A and B are axioms. That they are self-evident truths. Skepticism, however, is not bound by anything. The skeptic will find a way. They always do.
Doesn't this imply an ethical nihilism that nothing is moral or immoral? Yes it does, and I'm not afraid, and you shouldn't be either.
Moral logic, in general, follows this pattern:
A is true, and B is true, so action C is a moral behavior.
A traditional Christian moralist would like say it like this:
God gave us his law, God is the ultimate judge, so actions prescribed in that law are moral behaviors.
If this were an immutable truth there would be little room sin. Traditional Christianity paints any rejection of this as mere rebellion, but there are other more fundamental problems.
What if someone doubts that God exists? What if the Bible isn't perfectly clear on defining action C? The moral compulsion breaks down. Sprinkle a little skepticism on A, B, and C, and the moral law fails.
More universally, any set of A, B, and C is subject to doubt. If someone doesn't want to do action C, know that they will dedicate their energies to casting doubt on A and B.
A more experienced logician will claim that A and B are axioms. That they are self-evident truths. Skepticism, however, is not bound by anything. The skeptic will find a way. They always do.
Doesn't this imply an ethical nihilism that nothing is moral or immoral? Yes it does, and I'm not afraid, and you shouldn't be either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)