Opening of
chapter 7 in Joshua Greene's Moral Tribes:
[Obama] Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion specific values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or [invoke] God's will- I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
[Greene] "As
Obama's remarks suggest, modern herders need a common currency, a
universal metric for weighing the values of different tribes. Without
a common currency there can be no metamorality, no system for making
compromises . . .
The most
fundamental challenge comes from tribal loyalists. Obama urges
religious moral thinkers to translate their concerns into 'universal'
rather than 'religion-specific' values. But what if you firmly
believe that your specific religion delivers the universal moral
truth. In that case, the distinction between universal and religion
specific values makes no sense. (Obama is aware of this problem.)
Santorum, declared that Obama's position makes him sick to his
stomach. “What kind of country do we live in that says only people
of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case?'
Santorum is overstating. No one said religious people can't make
their case. Instead, says Obama, they must make their moral cases in
secular terms. But to many religious moralists, that's like telling a
ballerina to dance in a weight-suit. Try translating 'The gay
lifestyle is an abomination against God 'into secular terms. No
wonder Santorum feels queasy.”
I liked much
of Greene's book, and this was an enjoyable anecdote of U.S.
Politics. There are things that are missing in the book, generally
speaking, of which much of this blog is a counterpoint to.
The idea, Obama's here, that democracy as a whole should be based on secular reasons as agreed upon by the public, instead of on shared values of the majority, shows that what we (most of us) mean by democracy is really secularism. That is, we mean a politics devoid of cultured or religious positions. The idea that anyone's belief systems or political positions can surpass that kind of cultured washing, such as the way in which many of our values are just given by our culture or by religion, seems a far stretch. Not to mention that it is a stretch that Greene is trying to come to grips with throughout much of his book. It is also to worship at the altar of Reason, where we believe that hyper-rationality is a consistent and appropriate stance that can soak through our decisions. In the end, there may be nothing else to believe or no way for two people to come to discuss broad social issues other than through some kind of secular reasoning, but it is questionable whether it makes sense to try to define what is happening in our societies or our political systems as working within such.
The moral of
this story is that if you really want to be a good utilitarian, you
have to forego not only religion but culture and social institutions
in a larger respect. Likewise, it was something that Rawls's original
position did not do very well, nor did socialism or communism do very
well. Neither reached into the fabric of our socially mediated
identities to then make judgments about the kind of beings that we
are and thus the kind of social structures we could erect or would
want to erect. They left off the difficult part about the interplay
between our social structures and who we are, and thus even the
rationality and discourse framing that we would find moving. Where
they held useful political positions, it was not from a
sacredly-removed understanding about the nature of human beings, but
was instead a parochially positioned structure given the embedded
culture that they were arguing within. There were many other equally
moving social positions or rationalities that one could take (say
gender and sex institutional makeovers), but such positions were not
considered.
As we start
delving into more of our identity and our social institutions, we can
then use even broader positions to ask appropriate questions about
what we want. Which again, given the tenor of much of Greene's book,
say a broad-based progressive-liberal-utilitarianism, there are
places of our identities that he is unwilling to ask about. He is
unwilling to come to grips with certain social contingent facts about
our identity and the kind of social structures and political
reasoning that we may embark upon, once we lay such social
contingencies on the table. There are important reflections that he,
like Rawls, is unwilling to engage in.
On a further note, some
of Peter Singer's work pushes a hyper-rational utilitarianism to the
extreme. One example is the idea that we should ignore natured/cultured emotions when our own 1-year-old is dying and
instead save two foreign 10-year-olds (or even one other
10-year-old). Many naysayers believe that natural identity structures (say the emotion that nature has
provided us of impassioned love for our own children) is a good
thing, helps society tick, and is impossible to reflect upon or
change. Again, much of this blog is counterpoint to the notion that
such a nature exists within our identities, and that often subtle
cultural structures are erected upon such emotions or body
structures.
I believe that a culture and identities that were awash
in our best understanding about the self-awareness of 10-year-olds
versus 1-year-olds, understood the structure and reasons of our
natural inclinations, were more capable of prying apart social
institutions that nestle onto such genetic structures; such selves
would be more capable of making the more appropriate, utilitarian
judgment about how to structure societies and how to make such judgments. And they would be more
capable of making decisions that supposedly cuts against such
indelible natures. Outcries like “I would do anything to save my
child” or “I think my emotion to want to thoroughly harm some one
who has hurt my child is a good thing” are outcries from positions
that are weak at reflecting on who we are and what we can be. Such
positions buy into a socially conservative position that cannot imagine
selves or societies structured very differently. Many of the claims
from evolutionary psychology (etc.) help bolster this unthinkable
idea about the existence of different selves and different reactions
to events. Lastly, it is one thing to say that for the time being we need to continue allowing these emotions to guide us, or to say that politically this is what I think best for us to continue to reproduce in society and identities. It is an entirely different thing to believe that we have found a basis of human nature or have something upon which we can erect moral responsibility.
Importantly,
in the end, all children would lead far better lives if we came to
embrace such a cold understanding of who we are. There would be
better focus on socialization and education of every last member. Accepting the kinds of machines that we are, individuals who
can see beyond “death-to-my-child's-murderer” are individuals
who know that individual love is an insane position to allow for the
arising of the kind of disparate environments we allow around
different developing machines. This includes not just between the
haves and the have-nots, which disparity is of course absurd. But it also gives us better focus on the vastly disparate developmental
programming we put around most adequately wealthy children. That is,
when we take arbitrariness of differential developmental programs off
the table, ignore the emotionally-structured belief about
parent-child guided arrangements, we will see the basic necessity of
appropriate programming for every last individual. As we move into
our best naturalistic understanding of our world, I am confident that
this is the understanding that we will eventually embrace. It will
erase U.S. processes of socialization/education and familial
structures, but it will also erase other social systems that believe
they are erecting a fair meritocratic program of achievement, one
where everyone has the “opportunity for success.”
So,
when our best and brightest cling to their supposedly natural or
culturally-induced emotions, and say this is just how humans are
suppose to be, we have good reason, that in the end, our world will
see beyond such people. We will see beyond the social structures (moral
responsibility, e.g.) and the selves that such people think necessary to erect or
to reproduce.
No comments:
Post a Comment