A Plato Quote
When the few … [who] have glimpsed the joy and happiness to be found in mastering philosophy and have gained a clear enough impression of the madness of the masses; when they have realized that more or less every political action is pernicious and that if someone tries to assist morality there will be no one to back him up and see that he comes out unscathed, but it would be like an encounter between a human being and a wild beast; since he isn’t prepared to join others in their immorality and isn’t capable all alone, of standing up to all those ferocious beasts, but would die before doing his community or friends any good, and so would be useless to himself and to everyone else – once he has grasped all this with his rational mind, he lies low and does only what he’s meant to do. It’s as if he’s taken shelter under a wall during a storm … lawlessness infects everyone else he sees, so he is content if he can find a way to live his life here on earth without becoming tainted by immoral or unjust deeds, and to depart from life confidently, and without anger and bitterness.
Republic, trans. Robin Waterfield, 496c-e
Monday, January 19, 2009
Experimentation, Conservatism, Human Nature
Nothing in the previous post should be taken to exclude the viability of experimentation with new ways of life. Prudence doesn't rule it out. Conservatism doesn't rule it out. Human nature doesn't rule it out but, on the contrary, sanctions it as a treasure trove which invites us to plumb its depths.
Of course, prudence and conservatism lead one to be significantly cautious with such experimentation. Where one crosses the terrain from the merely imaginative and intrepid into the territory of the incautious, reckless and foolish need not concern us here. You'll know it when you see it, I hope. If not, you'll learn the hard way.
But while experimentation isn't ruled out, fetishism is. It is the clinging to a certain agenda of social change against compelling reasons derived by prudential inspection of history and human nature. Imagining a state of affairs which is perhaps happy in some respect, the zealot ignores the variety of ways in which it will be miserable and he presses on. Again and again. In our unhappiness, discontent, ingratitude, stupidity and ignorance, we follow him. Again and again.
Whereas the fetishist's rhetoric is the mere semblance of prudent deliberation, his agenda for social change is the mere semblance of true experimentation. He doesn't really experiment, because experiment has the goal of testing new ways against human nature in order to find new ways of attaining good lives in it. The fetishist fantasizes a new society which isn't really human in nature and in which he is the puppet master. Dont be fooled.
Nothing in the previous post should be taken to exclude the viability of experimentation with new ways of life. Prudence doesn't rule it out. Conservatism doesn't rule it out. Human nature doesn't rule it out but, on the contrary, sanctions it as a treasure trove which invites us to plumb its depths.
Of course, prudence and conservatism lead one to be significantly cautious with such experimentation. Where one crosses the terrain from the merely imaginative and intrepid into the territory of the incautious, reckless and foolish need not concern us here. You'll know it when you see it, I hope. If not, you'll learn the hard way.
But while experimentation isn't ruled out, fetishism is. It is the clinging to a certain agenda of social change against compelling reasons derived by prudential inspection of history and human nature. Imagining a state of affairs which is perhaps happy in some respect, the zealot ignores the variety of ways in which it will be miserable and he presses on. Again and again. In our unhappiness, discontent, ingratitude, stupidity and ignorance, we follow him. Again and again.
Whereas the fetishist's rhetoric is the mere semblance of prudent deliberation, his agenda for social change is the mere semblance of true experimentation. He doesn't really experiment, because experiment has the goal of testing new ways against human nature in order to find new ways of attaining good lives in it. The fetishist fantasizes a new society which isn't really human in nature and in which he is the puppet master. Dont be fooled.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Conservatism and Human Nature
We'll proceed with our series. At this point, a little note.
We have a nature: a set of dispositions to desire certain ways of living and a set of functional dispositions. We like wine and a little sunshine. We are such that we sleep about eight hours every day, build things with our hands and with tools, and thrive with exercise and a balanced diet. We don't take to the surface of the moon, to counting grains of rice until death overcomes us, or to doing without any sleep.
It is conservative to embrace a set of values which map onto these facts of our nature or at least reflect them well enough to promote our flourishing in keeping with them. Deliberation enters into things where preference must be determined amongst conflicting inclinations or functional attributes which cannot all be fulfilled. Besides the establishment of the relevant non-moral facts, conservative deliberation aims at predicting which course will satisfy as many of the stronger vectors of our nature as possible. It doesn't fetishize any single inclination and neglect others which may be stronger, more long-lived and more numerous. It is prudence. The fetishism of a single value over others is a semblance of deliberation. It argues that the other values must be neglected because they interfere with the fetish, but this is only similar to true deliberation and not the same. It is willing to embrace courses which lead to ruination because it promises that human nature may be changed or ignored so that the ruination never occurs. The preference for genuine deliberation, on the other hand, is prudence.
I've slipped from "conservative deliberation" to "genuine, true deliberation." There is no difference, and if you think otherwise, you're mistaking the semblance for the real thing. There is nothing that would count as evidence that a course of behavior or way of life that went against what we know to be true about our nature and our set of time-honored, human-nature-tested and cherished values was the right course or a good way of life. For the only kind of thing that counts as evidence in these matters is what we prefer, what suits us.
We'll proceed with our series. At this point, a little note.
We have a nature: a set of dispositions to desire certain ways of living and a set of functional dispositions. We like wine and a little sunshine. We are such that we sleep about eight hours every day, build things with our hands and with tools, and thrive with exercise and a balanced diet. We don't take to the surface of the moon, to counting grains of rice until death overcomes us, or to doing without any sleep.
It is conservative to embrace a set of values which map onto these facts of our nature or at least reflect them well enough to promote our flourishing in keeping with them. Deliberation enters into things where preference must be determined amongst conflicting inclinations or functional attributes which cannot all be fulfilled. Besides the establishment of the relevant non-moral facts, conservative deliberation aims at predicting which course will satisfy as many of the stronger vectors of our nature as possible. It doesn't fetishize any single inclination and neglect others which may be stronger, more long-lived and more numerous. It is prudence. The fetishism of a single value over others is a semblance of deliberation. It argues that the other values must be neglected because they interfere with the fetish, but this is only similar to true deliberation and not the same. It is willing to embrace courses which lead to ruination because it promises that human nature may be changed or ignored so that the ruination never occurs. The preference for genuine deliberation, on the other hand, is prudence.
I've slipped from "conservative deliberation" to "genuine, true deliberation." There is no difference, and if you think otherwise, you're mistaking the semblance for the real thing. There is nothing that would count as evidence that a course of behavior or way of life that went against what we know to be true about our nature and our set of time-honored, human-nature-tested and cherished values was the right course or a good way of life. For the only kind of thing that counts as evidence in these matters is what we prefer, what suits us.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Opening the Heart
Human beings would like to be unburdened of their resentments and anxieties. These militate against the nobler and heartier elements of ourselves and push upon us nihilism and despair to replace the profound contentment we would otherwise attain. We find ourselves buffeted about between these two forces (the angry and desparate vs. the peaceful and content) and we seek salvation. The way to find it is to open the heart through the right kind of meditation. Failing that, under duress, we seek temporary relief of the burden by using drugs, sleeping all day, or succumbing to hypnotic states produced by experts who, like drugs, are able to cause a facsimile of the opening of the heart during the hypnosis so that the experience is highly pleasant and the recipient returns for more when the effects wear off. Rather than becoming hypnotized by one's conscience, one's heart, or by one's gratitude for living in this world, one becomes hypnotized by something which is frequently taken away: the hypnotist. The cult of personality, which is an essential element of fascism, preys upon the human aspiration to salvation. By the way, this is why those who see through the facade find the speech of the fascist unpleasant, rather than pleasant.
Human beings would like to be unburdened of their resentments and anxieties. These militate against the nobler and heartier elements of ourselves and push upon us nihilism and despair to replace the profound contentment we would otherwise attain. We find ourselves buffeted about between these two forces (the angry and desparate vs. the peaceful and content) and we seek salvation. The way to find it is to open the heart through the right kind of meditation. Failing that, under duress, we seek temporary relief of the burden by using drugs, sleeping all day, or succumbing to hypnotic states produced by experts who, like drugs, are able to cause a facsimile of the opening of the heart during the hypnosis so that the experience is highly pleasant and the recipient returns for more when the effects wear off. Rather than becoming hypnotized by one's conscience, one's heart, or by one's gratitude for living in this world, one becomes hypnotized by something which is frequently taken away: the hypnotist. The cult of personality, which is an essential element of fascism, preys upon the human aspiration to salvation. By the way, this is why those who see through the facade find the speech of the fascist unpleasant, rather than pleasant.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Bah Humbug
I'm a Scrooge and an atheist. At this time of year I wish we had no Christmas trees or ornaments (although I admit the Christmas lights on houses are gay.) I don't want any presents and I don't want to give anyone any presents. No one needs anything, anyway, and everyone's spoiled. Bah, humbug. You all can take your Christmas and stuff it in a sock!
I just wish that this Christmas, and every other, all people could find the profound peace and joy of God in their hearts and be released from hatred and resentment. Imagine that! If not a single tree or present or plate of Christmas cookies could be seen one Christmas but instead everyone had this experience of God - now that would be a Christmas!
But instead, Christmas is supposed to be all about family and loved ones and giving and sharing and all that other stuff that has nothing to do with Christmas at all. Humbug. Cancel it and make it a work day.
I'm a Scrooge and an atheist. At this time of year I wish we had no Christmas trees or ornaments (although I admit the Christmas lights on houses are gay.) I don't want any presents and I don't want to give anyone any presents. No one needs anything, anyway, and everyone's spoiled. Bah, humbug. You all can take your Christmas and stuff it in a sock!
I just wish that this Christmas, and every other, all people could find the profound peace and joy of God in their hearts and be released from hatred and resentment. Imagine that! If not a single tree or present or plate of Christmas cookies could be seen one Christmas but instead everyone had this experience of God - now that would be a Christmas!
But instead, Christmas is supposed to be all about family and loved ones and giving and sharing and all that other stuff that has nothing to do with Christmas at all. Humbug. Cancel it and make it a work day.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Two Points in Favor of Libertarianism
1. I've argued on this blog that libertarians are wrong to maintain that it is in principle unjust for the government to take money from the able and give it to decent people who through no fault of their own have become unable to look after themselves. I still believe that. However, it may be that it is in practice wrong-headed to give the government this authority because it pushes us along the road to the oblivion of big government. In other words, it may be that human nature makes it unlikely that a lean welfare net can be maintained without its growing unwieldy, fat and oppressive. I think this is right. If it is, then abolishing government welfare is not an injustice to the unfortunate because they don't have a right to society ruining itself. They have a right to simple assistance, however, and it should come from non-governmental sources. So, I agree with libertarianism, though not in principle but only in conclusion.
2. Libertarians do not necessarily take rugged individualism to the absurdly extreme point that it entails the position that no one should ever need any help. At least, sensible libertarians do not do this and libertarianism doesn't entail it. Rather, libertarians countenance a society in which people need and receive help from one another without the involvement of government.
So, there is wrongheadedness in some strands of libertarianism, for example, the viewpoint that no one has a right to help unless he contracted for it and the opinion that an ideal society is one in which no one needs or receives anyone else's help. The first is essential to libertarian theory and the second is not. But the point is that neither is utterly fatal to libertarian political views.
1. I've argued on this blog that libertarians are wrong to maintain that it is in principle unjust for the government to take money from the able and give it to decent people who through no fault of their own have become unable to look after themselves. I still believe that. However, it may be that it is in practice wrong-headed to give the government this authority because it pushes us along the road to the oblivion of big government. In other words, it may be that human nature makes it unlikely that a lean welfare net can be maintained without its growing unwieldy, fat and oppressive. I think this is right. If it is, then abolishing government welfare is not an injustice to the unfortunate because they don't have a right to society ruining itself. They have a right to simple assistance, however, and it should come from non-governmental sources. So, I agree with libertarianism, though not in principle but only in conclusion.
2. Libertarians do not necessarily take rugged individualism to the absurdly extreme point that it entails the position that no one should ever need any help. At least, sensible libertarians do not do this and libertarianism doesn't entail it. Rather, libertarians countenance a society in which people need and receive help from one another without the involvement of government.
So, there is wrongheadedness in some strands of libertarianism, for example, the viewpoint that no one has a right to help unless he contracted for it and the opinion that an ideal society is one in which no one needs or receives anyone else's help. The first is essential to libertarian theory and the second is not. But the point is that neither is utterly fatal to libertarian political views.
Spiritual, but Not Religious
In the old days this meant you didn't go to church, you liked crystals and Buddhist meditation, and you believed God was "a force, like an energy" or similar gobbledy-gook.
Never mind that. Try this. If you have a profoundly powerful disposition to feel grateful that you are alive as a human being in this world and this disposition makes it easier for you to pursue the moral virtues, then you are spiritual. If at the same time you don't cotton to churches, rituals, dogmas and everything else associated with religions, then you aren't religious.
If, in addition, you shrug off the criticism that you are a fool to eschew the wisdom of one of the organized religions and go off on your own, then you are unabashedly spiritual-but-not-religious. If you are aware of the manifold foolishness partaken in by the organized religions, then you are also well-armed. If you acknowledge much that is good in organized religions, as well as the foolish, then you are level-headed, as well as well-armed.
In the old days this meant you didn't go to church, you liked crystals and Buddhist meditation, and you believed God was "a force, like an energy" or similar gobbledy-gook.
Never mind that. Try this. If you have a profoundly powerful disposition to feel grateful that you are alive as a human being in this world and this disposition makes it easier for you to pursue the moral virtues, then you are spiritual. If at the same time you don't cotton to churches, rituals, dogmas and everything else associated with religions, then you aren't religious.
If, in addition, you shrug off the criticism that you are a fool to eschew the wisdom of one of the organized religions and go off on your own, then you are unabashedly spiritual-but-not-religious. If you are aware of the manifold foolishness partaken in by the organized religions, then you are also well-armed. If you acknowledge much that is good in organized religions, as well as the foolish, then you are level-headed, as well as well-armed.
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Human Nature and Morality
In view of the last post's little sketch of the way in which it is important to keep human nature in view when setting purposes for ourselves, we can see that M. Stanton Evans's view of the role of God in a deriving morality from human nature is not a necessary role. Indeed, it may not even be helpful in view of what I said about nihilism in the aside.
Still worried? Keep your oughts close to your ises. The reason you ought to set purposes in harmony with observations, wisdom and lore about your nature is that you will be unhappy and unfulfilled if you do not. Also, in many cases you will go well enough astray to end up with an immoral way of life which disposes you to do wrong by others.
There is a link between what is right and human nature, though it is not a direct logical entailment of the former by the latter or any simple identity of what is right and what human nature bids us do. It is rather a loose tethering between the two, though a tethering just the same. There are cases in which we ought to disobey what nature bids. There is no need for a God to fix morality with the cement of human nature. Right and wrong would be what they are regardless of his choice.
If you're still worried, then go ahead and have your God. It's a beautiful thing to do and one more profound than words can say. It may make sense to believe in Him even while recognizing that his existence isn't necessary to morality.
Anyway, all that is not the point. The point is what human nature and morality are and what their relation is. Here is another bit of the linkage. Human nature equips us with benevolent or altruistic inclinations: desires that others fare well. Human nature also, of course, equips one with strong regard for one's own welfare. Observations, wisdom and lore about your nature allows you to understand the coherent meshing amongst benevolent and self-interested desires that may be attained. The manifold and complicated ways in which they coalesce in a set of values are a culture which reflects human nature. There will be more than one reasonable culture, where "reasonable" refers to internal coherence and degree of consistency with human nature and various other relevant facts about the way the world works. The attainment of a character in harmony with this coherent meshing of desires is virtue.
In view of the last post's little sketch of the way in which it is important to keep human nature in view when setting purposes for ourselves, we can see that M. Stanton Evans's view of the role of God in a deriving morality from human nature is not a necessary role. Indeed, it may not even be helpful in view of what I said about nihilism in the aside.
Still worried? Keep your oughts close to your ises. The reason you ought to set purposes in harmony with observations, wisdom and lore about your nature is that you will be unhappy and unfulfilled if you do not. Also, in many cases you will go well enough astray to end up with an immoral way of life which disposes you to do wrong by others.
There is a link between what is right and human nature, though it is not a direct logical entailment of the former by the latter or any simple identity of what is right and what human nature bids us do. It is rather a loose tethering between the two, though a tethering just the same. There are cases in which we ought to disobey what nature bids. There is no need for a God to fix morality with the cement of human nature. Right and wrong would be what they are regardless of his choice.
If you're still worried, then go ahead and have your God. It's a beautiful thing to do and one more profound than words can say. It may make sense to believe in Him even while recognizing that his existence isn't necessary to morality.
Anyway, all that is not the point. The point is what human nature and morality are and what their relation is. Here is another bit of the linkage. Human nature equips us with benevolent or altruistic inclinations: desires that others fare well. Human nature also, of course, equips one with strong regard for one's own welfare. Observations, wisdom and lore about your nature allows you to understand the coherent meshing amongst benevolent and self-interested desires that may be attained. The manifold and complicated ways in which they coalesce in a set of values are a culture which reflects human nature. There will be more than one reasonable culture, where "reasonable" refers to internal coherence and degree of consistency with human nature and various other relevant facts about the way the world works. The attainment of a character in harmony with this coherent meshing of desires is virtue.
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Human Nature and Conservatism
Jonah Goldberg quotes M. Stanton Evans:
The conservative believes that ours is a God-centered, and therefore an ordered Universe [and] that man's purpose is to shape his life to the patterns of order proceeding from the Divine center of life.
So all conservatives are theists? Not so. Evans expresses a very popular conservative belief, but there are conservatives who do not hold it.
Ours is a universe devoid of purpose and without center. There are patterns of order in it that generate a human nature, but there is not the slightest evidence of the existence of a God.
Human nature is the cluster of dispositions which we human beings usually have. We set purposes for ourselves, an activity which ought to be informed by observations, lore and learning about human nature. You can set a purpose for yourself but miss the mark and find yourself unhappy in fulfilling the purpose because it grates against your nature, the set of dispositions you ignored or of which you were ignorant in setting the purpose. You can also set purposes well suited to your nature. Happiness is the fulfillment of such a purpose.
The conservative view expressed by Evans is often beautiful and noble (and is only not so in the hands of perverse religion.) Taken as a metaphor it expresses my atheistic conservatism perfectly. Taken at literal value, it isn't true. But either way, I admire decent conservatives' embrace of it. Some of them have contempt for my conservative view of human nature, but that misdirected contempt is their problem, not mine.
[An aside: Let me reprise a former refrain regarding nihilism. If you suspect nihilism lurking in this atheistic view, you should not. There is nothing that I would take as evidence that nihilism was true. The conservative of Evans's stripe, on the other hand, would have to embrace nihilism if he discovered that there is no God. This is a precarious position, in view of the fact that there is no God.]
Our series on conservatism and human nature continue, overlapping at times. There is much more to say.
Jonah Goldberg quotes M. Stanton Evans:
The conservative believes that ours is a God-centered, and therefore an ordered Universe [and] that man's purpose is to shape his life to the patterns of order proceeding from the Divine center of life.
So all conservatives are theists? Not so. Evans expresses a very popular conservative belief, but there are conservatives who do not hold it.
Ours is a universe devoid of purpose and without center. There are patterns of order in it that generate a human nature, but there is not the slightest evidence of the existence of a God.
Human nature is the cluster of dispositions which we human beings usually have. We set purposes for ourselves, an activity which ought to be informed by observations, lore and learning about human nature. You can set a purpose for yourself but miss the mark and find yourself unhappy in fulfilling the purpose because it grates against your nature, the set of dispositions you ignored or of which you were ignorant in setting the purpose. You can also set purposes well suited to your nature. Happiness is the fulfillment of such a purpose.
The conservative view expressed by Evans is often beautiful and noble (and is only not so in the hands of perverse religion.) Taken as a metaphor it expresses my atheistic conservatism perfectly. Taken at literal value, it isn't true. But either way, I admire decent conservatives' embrace of it. Some of them have contempt for my conservative view of human nature, but that misdirected contempt is their problem, not mine.
[An aside: Let me reprise a former refrain regarding nihilism. If you suspect nihilism lurking in this atheistic view, you should not. There is nothing that I would take as evidence that nihilism was true. The conservative of Evans's stripe, on the other hand, would have to embrace nihilism if he discovered that there is no God. This is a precarious position, in view of the fact that there is no God.]
Our series on conservatism and human nature continue, overlapping at times. There is much more to say.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Homeschool
Homeschool your kids. You can make sure they learn a lot, pick the books for them, spend more time with them, and keep them away from a significant amounts of waste of their time. This is one way to repair this country: to educate the children well. We have become ignorant and course. An explosion in the rate of homeschooling would be well. If homeschooling is an idea you haven't considered fully, just think about it for a few days. Is your child listening to an hour and a half of BS every day? Just curious.
Of course, I'm mouthing off about this over here.
Homeschool your kids. You can make sure they learn a lot, pick the books for them, spend more time with them, and keep them away from a significant amounts of waste of their time. This is one way to repair this country: to educate the children well. We have become ignorant and course. An explosion in the rate of homeschooling would be well. If homeschooling is an idea you haven't considered fully, just think about it for a few days. Is your child listening to an hour and a half of BS every day? Just curious.
Of course, I'm mouthing off about this over here.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Same-Sex Marriage Controversy
I ignore people who are angry about resistance to same-sex marriage and label its opponents "bigots." Their attitude indicates an unawareness that their opponents have plausible arguments, a likely tendency to bemoan the existence of the "Bible-thumping" "religious right," and a likely tendency to label the pro-life position (anti-abortion, anti-fetal stem cell research) as a religious "superstition" that should be booed out of the political forum. I think these angry people are extremely emotional and uninterested in tracking the arguments to find the truth. I see very little in the way of religious superstition in the forum, and very little amongst religious, pro-life, anti-gay marriage conservatives. I do see plausible arguments, there, however. So, you'll pardon me if I think at least some of the angry gay-marriage proponents are themselves the simply bigots.
By the same token, I have no time for religious, pro-life, anti-gay marriage conservatives who dismiss their opponents with a sneer of contempt and are unwilling to consider their arguments. I don't see much of this, however. Most of the sneering and dismissiveness I see coming from the other side. But I could be wrong about that.
I just tarry with people who are willing and able to argue the various positions with calmness and consideration. Ignore the trolls.
I ignore people who are angry about resistance to same-sex marriage and label its opponents "bigots." Their attitude indicates an unawareness that their opponents have plausible arguments, a likely tendency to bemoan the existence of the "Bible-thumping" "religious right," and a likely tendency to label the pro-life position (anti-abortion, anti-fetal stem cell research) as a religious "superstition" that should be booed out of the political forum. I think these angry people are extremely emotional and uninterested in tracking the arguments to find the truth. I see very little in the way of religious superstition in the forum, and very little amongst religious, pro-life, anti-gay marriage conservatives. I do see plausible arguments, there, however. So, you'll pardon me if I think at least some of the angry gay-marriage proponents are themselves the simply bigots.
By the same token, I have no time for religious, pro-life, anti-gay marriage conservatives who dismiss their opponents with a sneer of contempt and are unwilling to consider their arguments. I don't see much of this, however. Most of the sneering and dismissiveness I see coming from the other side. But I could be wrong about that.
I just tarry with people who are willing and able to argue the various positions with calmness and consideration. Ignore the trolls.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Human Nature and Morality V
Just to recap: It isn't helpful to think of human nature as a mysterious essence in a black box, something that might be totally surprising to discover, alien to your sensibilities, or repulsive to your inclinations and preferences. Your nature is not a role given to you that may be totally repulsive to your personality. Such a concept would be a fate or mandate that might be totally alien to your nature. Now, if you believe that God commands you aright, that's well and good, but if his command is totally incompatible with your most settled preferences, then it runs against your nature. Nature is intimate, not alien, to your desires.
On the other hand, human nature is not simply whatever you feel like doing, whatever "comes naturally" or impulsively. One can be accustomed to acting according to feelings and find that one's life is very misaligned with one's nature. The discovery involves confronting preferences which one has been thwarting by acting on feeling. In other words, desires can be incoherent (practically, though not logically.) By acting on the most salient or palpable desires of the moment, one risks thwarting the larger and more settled set of desires which make up one's nature.
Morality certainly involves good and right ways of living. If these are somehow linked to human nature, then this is because morality is linked to our preferences. To some degree we naturally prefer what is good and right. However, we also have desires which conflict with these and we do act on those desires. Nor is it the case that human nature is simply morally good. It may be natural for us to be good at times and to be bad at times. This a matter which will take some sorting out in this series of posts. But for the moment we can see that if morality is linked to human nature, then it is linked to our desires because our desires and human nature are inseparable.
Just to recap: It isn't helpful to think of human nature as a mysterious essence in a black box, something that might be totally surprising to discover, alien to your sensibilities, or repulsive to your inclinations and preferences. Your nature is not a role given to you that may be totally repulsive to your personality. Such a concept would be a fate or mandate that might be totally alien to your nature. Now, if you believe that God commands you aright, that's well and good, but if his command is totally incompatible with your most settled preferences, then it runs against your nature. Nature is intimate, not alien, to your desires.
On the other hand, human nature is not simply whatever you feel like doing, whatever "comes naturally" or impulsively. One can be accustomed to acting according to feelings and find that one's life is very misaligned with one's nature. The discovery involves confronting preferences which one has been thwarting by acting on feeling. In other words, desires can be incoherent (practically, though not logically.) By acting on the most salient or palpable desires of the moment, one risks thwarting the larger and more settled set of desires which make up one's nature.
Morality certainly involves good and right ways of living. If these are somehow linked to human nature, then this is because morality is linked to our preferences. To some degree we naturally prefer what is good and right. However, we also have desires which conflict with these and we do act on those desires. Nor is it the case that human nature is simply morally good. It may be natural for us to be good at times and to be bad at times. This a matter which will take some sorting out in this series of posts. But for the moment we can see that if morality is linked to human nature, then it is linked to our desires because our desires and human nature are inseparable.
Friday, November 07, 2008
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Exorcise the Devils
I like this. Thanks, 52.
It's time to exorcise the nutters. Mild and decent people of liberal or conservative stripe should loiter together and mingle amicably, shunning the BDS crowd which has infected the Democratic base and shunning any conservatives who express hatred for mild and decent liberals. It means treating cordially and politely all mild and decent members of the opposite political stripe.
For example, liberals would show this sort of consideration to all mild and decent people who subscribe in broad outline to Bush's foreign policy. That includes President Bush himself.
In addition, people on opposite sides of the gay marriage issue should treat each other amicably, shunning anyone amongst them who could not do the same.
It means turning to someone with whom you agree politically and calling him out on his nasty treatment of a mild and decent person of the opposite political stripe. If he will not be shamed, then he must be shunned by you.
Alright? Then, let us begin!
I like this. Thanks, 52.
It's time to exorcise the nutters. Mild and decent people of liberal or conservative stripe should loiter together and mingle amicably, shunning the BDS crowd which has infected the Democratic base and shunning any conservatives who express hatred for mild and decent liberals. It means treating cordially and politely all mild and decent members of the opposite political stripe.
For example, liberals would show this sort of consideration to all mild and decent people who subscribe in broad outline to Bush's foreign policy. That includes President Bush himself.
In addition, people on opposite sides of the gay marriage issue should treat each other amicably, shunning anyone amongst them who could not do the same.
It means turning to someone with whom you agree politically and calling him out on his nasty treatment of a mild and decent person of the opposite political stripe. If he will not be shamed, then he must be shunned by you.
Alright? Then, let us begin!
Human Nature and Morality IV
"Human nature" may be conceived in two ways:
1. As an essence, a station, a role in a larger scheme, in a certain robust sense. In this sense, human nature has normative force independently of your preference in a way of life. By analogy, consider that the airline pilot must fly the plane because he's the pilot, and the actor must play the part because the show is going on now. It doesn't matter what they prefer to do, they ought to behave according to their roles. In the case of human nature, we add to the story that the role is the one you are suited to play and there is no other.
2. As a set of functions, desires, and dispositions that are deep-set, not ephemeral, recurring not short-lived, genetic, not generational. In this sense, human nature is not independent of what anyone desires. Human nature is not a normative force independent of preference but rather, on the contrary, logically determined by preference in some way, as desire and disposition are mentioned in the very conception. (We leave for another time the discussion of just exactly what way the desires determine human nature and which "set" of functions, desires, and dispositions is nature.)
I don't buy into conception 1. It is a fantasy, in my view. However, I think it is the conception of human nature underlying most attempts to link morality to human nature (in the Catholic philosophical tradition, for the chief example.) These attempts have been unsatisfactory because there is no evidence of a role we are supposed to play independent of human preference. Even if there were such a role, there is no reason to suppose we ought to play it. The mere fact that some scheme in the fabric of things has it that we are to play role X does not entail that we morally ought to play role X. Even if we grant that there is a God who designed the scheme, it still doesn't follow that we ought to do as he has designed.
Conception 2 is much more fruitful. If you are conservative and you think human nature is connected to morality, I share your point of view. But you don't get there by preferring conception 1 but, rather, by conception 2. There is much more ground to cover in that regard and we'll get to that in future posts in this series.
"Human nature" may be conceived in two ways:
1. As an essence, a station, a role in a larger scheme, in a certain robust sense. In this sense, human nature has normative force independently of your preference in a way of life. By analogy, consider that the airline pilot must fly the plane because he's the pilot, and the actor must play the part because the show is going on now. It doesn't matter what they prefer to do, they ought to behave according to their roles. In the case of human nature, we add to the story that the role is the one you are suited to play and there is no other.
2. As a set of functions, desires, and dispositions that are deep-set, not ephemeral, recurring not short-lived, genetic, not generational. In this sense, human nature is not independent of what anyone desires. Human nature is not a normative force independent of preference but rather, on the contrary, logically determined by preference in some way, as desire and disposition are mentioned in the very conception. (We leave for another time the discussion of just exactly what way the desires determine human nature and which "set" of functions, desires, and dispositions is nature.)
I don't buy into conception 1. It is a fantasy, in my view. However, I think it is the conception of human nature underlying most attempts to link morality to human nature (in the Catholic philosophical tradition, for the chief example.) These attempts have been unsatisfactory because there is no evidence of a role we are supposed to play independent of human preference. Even if there were such a role, there is no reason to suppose we ought to play it. The mere fact that some scheme in the fabric of things has it that we are to play role X does not entail that we morally ought to play role X. Even if we grant that there is a God who designed the scheme, it still doesn't follow that we ought to do as he has designed.
Conception 2 is much more fruitful. If you are conservative and you think human nature is connected to morality, I share your point of view. But you don't get there by preferring conception 1 but, rather, by conception 2. There is much more ground to cover in that regard and we'll get to that in future posts in this series.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Hail to the Chief!
Well, alrighty then! Godspeed to President-elect Obama as he enters into his transition phase. I wish him success in his presidency. A little bird tells me he will do the right thing most of the time (which would not be so bad, for a politician, eh?)
Oh, one thing: Mr. Obama, please do not transfer large chunks of my boss's earnings to me every April 15th. You have promised me $4000 of wealthy people's money per year. That's not right. If, as a matter of law, I am owed a dividend of their businesses every year, that's called...can't remember, what's that word?...ah, yes. Socialism. It's wrong. It's an injustice to the business owners, and it will depress the economy and result in huge job losses.
Just saying. Anyway, best of luck to President-elect Obama. I'll certainly do all I can in the forum to help his administration succeed - succeed in doing the right thing, mind you. Not going to help him succeed in losing wars, socializing health insurance or transferring wealth. Hail to the Chief!
Well, alrighty then! Godspeed to President-elect Obama as he enters into his transition phase. I wish him success in his presidency. A little bird tells me he will do the right thing most of the time (which would not be so bad, for a politician, eh?)
Oh, one thing: Mr. Obama, please do not transfer large chunks of my boss's earnings to me every April 15th. You have promised me $4000 of wealthy people's money per year. That's not right. If, as a matter of law, I am owed a dividend of their businesses every year, that's called...can't remember, what's that word?...ah, yes. Socialism. It's wrong. It's an injustice to the business owners, and it will depress the economy and result in huge job losses.
Just saying. Anyway, best of luck to President-elect Obama. I'll certainly do all I can in the forum to help his administration succeed - succeed in doing the right thing, mind you. Not going to help him succeed in losing wars, socializing health insurance or transferring wealth. Hail to the Chief!
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Conservatism, Centrism, and the Right-Left Illusion
The Right-left continuum is a deceit perpetrated by communists who, wishing to distinguish themselves from national socialists, called them "right" wing. "Centrist" is another layer of the confusion.
There is only conservatism and fetishism. People who fetishize economic equality (for all save party elite of course) and detest traditional ways of life are socialists/communists/progressives. People who follow this suit but only tepidly are "centrists." People who aren't suckered by the fetish and the hatred are conservatives. They aren't to the right of anything. They embrace the large set of important values which they should. They don't abandon the set, either hotly or tepidly, because of a fetish or a hatred. Conservatives who think of themselves as "center-right" have been deceived into thinking of themselves in this way by progressives who wish to drive a wedge between members of the big tent of conservatism by leveraging disputes within that tent. And it is a big tent, what with all the squabbles over the large set of values. There are squabbles because the large set of values requires difficult deliberation and casuistry where their application is fraught with ambiguity. A fetish for one value, on the other hand, offers the illusory solace of simple ideology.
When a conservative, through deliberation over a particular issue, reaches the same conclusion as socialists do on that issue, this presents an opportunity for the socialist to drive the wedge, when in fact there is nothing at all anti-conservative about the conclusion reached by the conservative or about his political stance.
There is no right-left continuum. Don't say "leftist," as it promotes the confusion perpetrated by socialists, seemingly requiring the confused conclusion that somehow conservatives are "rightist." Say "socialist," instead of "leftist."
In sum, there is conservatism and those who have abandoned it for the surety of a fetish, nothing more.
The Right-left continuum is a deceit perpetrated by communists who, wishing to distinguish themselves from national socialists, called them "right" wing. "Centrist" is another layer of the confusion.
There is only conservatism and fetishism. People who fetishize economic equality (for all save party elite of course) and detest traditional ways of life are socialists/communists/progressives. People who follow this suit but only tepidly are "centrists." People who aren't suckered by the fetish and the hatred are conservatives. They aren't to the right of anything. They embrace the large set of important values which they should. They don't abandon the set, either hotly or tepidly, because of a fetish or a hatred. Conservatives who think of themselves as "center-right" have been deceived into thinking of themselves in this way by progressives who wish to drive a wedge between members of the big tent of conservatism by leveraging disputes within that tent. And it is a big tent, what with all the squabbles over the large set of values. There are squabbles because the large set of values requires difficult deliberation and casuistry where their application is fraught with ambiguity. A fetish for one value, on the other hand, offers the illusory solace of simple ideology.
When a conservative, through deliberation over a particular issue, reaches the same conclusion as socialists do on that issue, this presents an opportunity for the socialist to drive the wedge, when in fact there is nothing at all anti-conservative about the conclusion reached by the conservative or about his political stance.
There is no right-left continuum. Don't say "leftist," as it promotes the confusion perpetrated by socialists, seemingly requiring the confused conclusion that somehow conservatives are "rightist." Say "socialist," instead of "leftist."
In sum, there is conservatism and those who have abandoned it for the surety of a fetish, nothing more.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Conservatism: Small Government and Liberty
We'll take a look at procedural conservatism later. For now, notice two of the values on the list of substantive conservatism: small government and liberty. These have a politically special role in conservatism.
These two values militate against totalitarianism, the cult of personality and their combination in fascism. Liberty entails the divorce of one's own fate, responsibilities, and decisions from the consensus or normative preferences. It's the difference between the General Will and the individual's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The way in which we thrive is by viewing ourselves as individual agents, not pieces of a larger agent in society. Such a larger agent, when imagined, will also be projected onto demagogues. These will turn out to be totalitarian tyrants.
This is a peculiarly politically important component of substantive conservatism. There is so much more to conservatism, both substantively and procedurally, but little of it is this politically important. It is not the core of conservatism or its most basic premise, but it does have this peculiar importance.
This adherence of conservatism to facts about human nature might remind you of our current series on human nature. Certain ways of life - liberty and small government - are more functionally satisfactory to us than other ways, which bring totalitarian misery or at best dreary and stultified societies. When we examine human nature for indications of what is right and good, this sort of fit amongst components of human nature counts as evidence. The conservative preference for small government and liberty is clear-eyed about human nature.
We'll take a look at procedural conservatism later. For now, notice two of the values on the list of substantive conservatism: small government and liberty. These have a politically special role in conservatism.
These two values militate against totalitarianism, the cult of personality and their combination in fascism. Liberty entails the divorce of one's own fate, responsibilities, and decisions from the consensus or normative preferences. It's the difference between the General Will and the individual's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The way in which we thrive is by viewing ourselves as individual agents, not pieces of a larger agent in society. Such a larger agent, when imagined, will also be projected onto demagogues. These will turn out to be totalitarian tyrants.
This is a peculiarly politically important component of substantive conservatism. There is so much more to conservatism, both substantively and procedurally, but little of it is this politically important. It is not the core of conservatism or its most basic premise, but it does have this peculiar importance.
This adherence of conservatism to facts about human nature might remind you of our current series on human nature. Certain ways of life - liberty and small government - are more functionally satisfactory to us than other ways, which bring totalitarian misery or at best dreary and stultified societies. When we examine human nature for indications of what is right and good, this sort of fit amongst components of human nature counts as evidence. The conservative preference for small government and liberty is clear-eyed about human nature.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Conservatism is Twofold
Here are two senses of conservatism. They are closely related.
1. Procedural Conservatism. This is the disposition to take a large set of values as important to moral and political deliberation, to attempt to preserve as many of these as possible in the determination of what to do. The determination of what to do is made precisely by discovering which action will promote the largest and most coherent set of the values to which we are committed.
Non-conservative moral and political stances, in contrast, tend to neglect large swathes of this set of values and fetishize particular members of it. For example, the libertarian makes a fetish of liberty. The left-liberal makes a fetish of helping the poor or, even worse, of economic equality, which is hardly, if at all, a member of the set of values we should promote in the first place. Excuses and falsehoods are embraced by these two characters in order to alleviate the strain of distorting the web of value so.
2. Substantive Conservatism. This is the devotion to certain values which are enumerated thusly: small government, the traditional virtues (self-reliance, justice, courage, etc.), gratitude, and liberty.
Conservatives should understand themselves in both senses 1 and 2. There is more on this in my archives, and we will be going deeper into these senses in future posts.
Here are two senses of conservatism. They are closely related.
1. Procedural Conservatism. This is the disposition to take a large set of values as important to moral and political deliberation, to attempt to preserve as many of these as possible in the determination of what to do. The determination of what to do is made precisely by discovering which action will promote the largest and most coherent set of the values to which we are committed.
Non-conservative moral and political stances, in contrast, tend to neglect large swathes of this set of values and fetishize particular members of it. For example, the libertarian makes a fetish of liberty. The left-liberal makes a fetish of helping the poor or, even worse, of economic equality, which is hardly, if at all, a member of the set of values we should promote in the first place. Excuses and falsehoods are embraced by these two characters in order to alleviate the strain of distorting the web of value so.
2. Substantive Conservatism. This is the devotion to certain values which are enumerated thusly: small government, the traditional virtues (self-reliance, justice, courage, etc.), gratitude, and liberty.
Conservatives should understand themselves in both senses 1 and 2. There is more on this in my archives, and we will be going deeper into these senses in future posts.
Human Nature and Morality III
Let's take a few cases of human functions, desires, or dispositions and examine the interface between human nature and morality.
It may be that certain features of human nature don't track well with right and wrong. Whether to use intoxicants is a moral issue not to be decided by whether using them is fitting to certain desires of fits in with certain functions of human beings. Nor is the issue of whether homosexual acts or homosexual marriage are right or wrong whether liberty and democracy are amenable to human nature.
Yet human nature counts in the deliberation over the moral status of these ways of life. How our natural inclinations are likely to receive these ways of life counts in determining whether we should pursue them. Some inclinations and natural functions may adhere to these ways of life whilst simultaneously others do not. There is a determination of preference involved in discerning the fit. How a way of life fits in with other ways of life we'd prefer to pursue is also relevant. Some components of human nature move us to do wrong, while others conduce to what is right. Human nature is not determinative. Yet, right and wrong do track with the resultant vector, as it were, of the sum of all components of human nature. This resultant vectors is discovered through ordinary moral deliberation, not merely observing human nature. It's not physics or biology that discovers right and wrong. It's prudential reasoning.
In short, there is no straight inference from a feature of human nature to morality. Preference and prudential reasoning intervene. We'll see just how so in subsequent posts in this series.
Let's take a few cases of human functions, desires, or dispositions and examine the interface between human nature and morality.
It may be that certain features of human nature don't track well with right and wrong. Whether to use intoxicants is a moral issue not to be decided by whether using them is fitting to certain desires of fits in with certain functions of human beings. Nor is the issue of whether homosexual acts or homosexual marriage are right or wrong whether liberty and democracy are amenable to human nature.
Yet human nature counts in the deliberation over the moral status of these ways of life. How our natural inclinations are likely to receive these ways of life counts in determining whether we should pursue them. Some inclinations and natural functions may adhere to these ways of life whilst simultaneously others do not. There is a determination of preference involved in discerning the fit. How a way of life fits in with other ways of life we'd prefer to pursue is also relevant. Some components of human nature move us to do wrong, while others conduce to what is right. Human nature is not determinative. Yet, right and wrong do track with the resultant vector, as it were, of the sum of all components of human nature. This resultant vectors is discovered through ordinary moral deliberation, not merely observing human nature. It's not physics or biology that discovers right and wrong. It's prudential reasoning.
In short, there is no straight inference from a feature of human nature to morality. Preference and prudential reasoning intervene. We'll see just how so in subsequent posts in this series.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
