Dear Readers: Don't fret, I do plan on continuing my Problem of Evil blogging soon. Things have been some what busy as of late, I haven't had time to post anything. I hope to post part 4 in the coming days. Thanks for your patience.
Shawn
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
The Bigger Picture (Problem of Evil #3)
(This is part 3 of series on the Problem of Evil)
The next Theodicy is The Bigger Picture Theodicy. If an individual had the means, the motive, and the opportunity to prevent some horrible crime (say murder or a rape), we normally think that person is open to moral criticism for failing to intervene. Similarly, the claim is that God is open to moral criticism as well for failing to intervene. This Theodicy claims that God’s greater knowledge allows him to know that he shouldn’t interfere in cases that we would normally think a person should interfere. Given our limited, finite knowledge, we don't see the bigger picture and think God should have interfered. God, however, sees the bigger picture and recognizes that he should not interfere because his interference would do more harm than good. In this way, God is doing the right thing in letting the evil occur.
For example, in the movie Spiderman, Peter Parker could have interfered to prevent an armed robber from getting away. He didn't act as a kind of revenge on the wrestling match organizer. The robber then ends up killing Parker's uncle. Had Parker known the bigger picture, he would have stopped the armed robber when he had the chance. Similarly, when we criticize God for not acting to prevent an evil, we are like Parker. We don't have the wider context of knowledge that justifies God's non-interference.
This Theodicy suffers from some similar problems to the previous two(Greater Good and Higher Morality).
First, it fails the Holocaust test. What greater context of knowledge justifies non-interference in such a case? For example, if we are Parker and see the armed robber running down the hall, it is not too hard for us to imagine a scenario that calls for our interference. But what scenario justifies non-interference in the murder of 6 million? One scenario that is sometimes offered is that possibly if God had interfered that would have eventually lead to the deaths of millions more in some other context. But this calls into question God's omnipotence. With infinite power, he should be able to prevent both catastrophes. It also raises the problem of whether lives are interchangeable. That is, is it morally justified to let 1 die to prevent the death of 2(or 2 million)? Most Utilitarians would answer yes, but it's not clear that doing so is justifiable outside of utilitarianism.
Second, we are left in the same obscure position as with Divine Purpose: we don't have access to the Divine Purpose or to the Bigger Picture. Thus, we have no way to evaluate whether the non-interference is justified on the basis of these. For example, to badly paraphrase Hume, maybe the bigger picture available to God is that to have interfered in the Holocaust would have scratched his finger. Surely, if that is the case, God is not all-good. Thus, to be able to justify this Theodicy we need to know the bigger picture as well. But since we don't have access, the Theodicy is ultimately incomprehensible, thus failing to provide a resolution to the paradox.
The next Theodicy is The Bigger Picture Theodicy. If an individual had the means, the motive, and the opportunity to prevent some horrible crime (say murder or a rape), we normally think that person is open to moral criticism for failing to intervene. Similarly, the claim is that God is open to moral criticism as well for failing to intervene. This Theodicy claims that God’s greater knowledge allows him to know that he shouldn’t interfere in cases that we would normally think a person should interfere. Given our limited, finite knowledge, we don't see the bigger picture and think God should have interfered. God, however, sees the bigger picture and recognizes that he should not interfere because his interference would do more harm than good. In this way, God is doing the right thing in letting the evil occur.
For example, in the movie Spiderman, Peter Parker could have interfered to prevent an armed robber from getting away. He didn't act as a kind of revenge on the wrestling match organizer. The robber then ends up killing Parker's uncle. Had Parker known the bigger picture, he would have stopped the armed robber when he had the chance. Similarly, when we criticize God for not acting to prevent an evil, we are like Parker. We don't have the wider context of knowledge that justifies God's non-interference.
This Theodicy suffers from some similar problems to the previous two(Greater Good and Higher Morality).
First, it fails the Holocaust test. What greater context of knowledge justifies non-interference in such a case? For example, if we are Parker and see the armed robber running down the hall, it is not too hard for us to imagine a scenario that calls for our interference. But what scenario justifies non-interference in the murder of 6 million? One scenario that is sometimes offered is that possibly if God had interfered that would have eventually lead to the deaths of millions more in some other context. But this calls into question God's omnipotence. With infinite power, he should be able to prevent both catastrophes. It also raises the problem of whether lives are interchangeable. That is, is it morally justified to let 1 die to prevent the death of 2(or 2 million)? Most Utilitarians would answer yes, but it's not clear that doing so is justifiable outside of utilitarianism.
Second, we are left in the same obscure position as with Divine Purpose: we don't have access to the Divine Purpose or to the Bigger Picture. Thus, we have no way to evaluate whether the non-interference is justified on the basis of these. For example, to badly paraphrase Hume, maybe the bigger picture available to God is that to have interfered in the Holocaust would have scratched his finger. Surely, if that is the case, God is not all-good. Thus, to be able to justify this Theodicy we need to know the bigger picture as well. But since we don't have access, the Theodicy is ultimately incomprehensible, thus failing to provide a resolution to the paradox.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Higher Morality (Problem of Evil #2)
(This is part 2 of series on the Problem of Evil)
The essential idea with this Theodicy is that God should be judged by some higher, divine morality. From the perspective of this higher morality, what is described or characterized as evil by human morality is actually good.
Like the The Greater Good Theodicy, this Theodicy ends up denying the existence of evil. What we take to be evil is really good. And so it fails the basic test of maintaining all four claims of the paradox (see the original post).
Another problem here is that it sets human morality at odds with the higher divine morality. If the higher morality is going to judge the Holocaust, fatal disease outbreaks, etc, as good, while human morality will judge them bad, then the 'good' in each of these moralities are different. Good on the higher morality is not what we mean by good.
But, then, which good is being ascribed when we say God is all-good? If it is the human morality usage, then we appear to be right back with the paradox. If it is the divine morality usage, then maybe we resolve the paradox but at the cost of understanding. We don't know what divine morality means by good if it would describe the Holocaust as good. Moreover, we have no access to what divine morality is. So, we do not understand what all-good means.
Some theists will accept this. God is obscure (as Patrick mentioned in one of the comments to an earlier post). But if we are aiming to get an understanding of the problem of evil and get to some comprehensible resolution, then this is not an answer. The only reason to engage in Theodicy is because one is uncomfortable with paradox presented by the problem of evil. If one is satisfied with obscurity, I doubt the paradox would be all that disquieting in the first place.
The central problem, then, with this Theodicy is that it makes 'good' incomprehensible, and so the whole Theodicy is incomprehensible.
The essential idea with this Theodicy is that God should be judged by some higher, divine morality. From the perspective of this higher morality, what is described or characterized as evil by human morality is actually good.
Like the The Greater Good Theodicy, this Theodicy ends up denying the existence of evil. What we take to be evil is really good. And so it fails the basic test of maintaining all four claims of the paradox (see the original post).
Another problem here is that it sets human morality at odds with the higher divine morality. If the higher morality is going to judge the Holocaust, fatal disease outbreaks, etc, as good, while human morality will judge them bad, then the 'good' in each of these moralities are different. Good on the higher morality is not what we mean by good.
But, then, which good is being ascribed when we say God is all-good? If it is the human morality usage, then we appear to be right back with the paradox. If it is the divine morality usage, then maybe we resolve the paradox but at the cost of understanding. We don't know what divine morality means by good if it would describe the Holocaust as good. Moreover, we have no access to what divine morality is. So, we do not understand what all-good means.
Some theists will accept this. God is obscure (as Patrick mentioned in one of the comments to an earlier post). But if we are aiming to get an understanding of the problem of evil and get to some comprehensible resolution, then this is not an answer. The only reason to engage in Theodicy is because one is uncomfortable with paradox presented by the problem of evil. If one is satisfied with obscurity, I doubt the paradox would be all that disquieting in the first place.
The central problem, then, with this Theodicy is that it makes 'good' incomprehensible, and so the whole Theodicy is incomprehensible.
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Observing Yom Kippur
So what does a secular, humanistic Jew do on Yom Kippur? Obviously, I don’t daven in shul, afflict my soul, or make myself pitiable before God.
One of the most identifiable observances of Yom Kippur is the fasting. I do a symbolic fast. That is, I don’t fast sundown to sundown. But I do set aside several hours on Yom Kippur for reflection and during that period, I don’t eat (though I do drink water). This is often only several hours, though some years I’ll do it most of the day. I am not going to torture myself all day merely for tradition. So on the years where we plan a Break Fast or attend one, I will fast for most of the day to make the Break Fast more meaningful. On years like this one, where we don’t have a Break Fast, I only fast for the period of reflection. It’s a symbolic or ritualized fast. I am fasting to connect with the traditions of the Jewish people, to remind myself what day it is, and to make sure I engage in the kind of reflection appropriate for the day.
I reflect on the past year. I go month by month, focusing on accomplishments and achievements; and also on failures and shortcomings. What could I have done better? As part of that, I also recall harm or pain I might have caused another that I have not corrected. I think how I can correct or seek forgiveness for these; and make a plan to do that.
I think about the future: what are my goals, but also how can I improve myself. What parts of my character need work? And what am I going to do about it?
I also spend time thinking about what being Jewish means to me. I am strongly connected to the Jewish people and to my Jewish roots. I want preserve them, deepen them, and celebrate them. (And so I write blog posts like this)
Lastly, I reflect on any significant losses. This past year, as many know, we lost our beloved cat Sylvia. I spent some time looking at photos of Sylvia, reading the blog posts about her illness, and just letting myself miss her. It was painful, but important.
Good Yontiv, Good Fast, and Shana Tova!
One of the most identifiable observances of Yom Kippur is the fasting. I do a symbolic fast. That is, I don’t fast sundown to sundown. But I do set aside several hours on Yom Kippur for reflection and during that period, I don’t eat (though I do drink water). This is often only several hours, though some years I’ll do it most of the day. I am not going to torture myself all day merely for tradition. So on the years where we plan a Break Fast or attend one, I will fast for most of the day to make the Break Fast more meaningful. On years like this one, where we don’t have a Break Fast, I only fast for the period of reflection. It’s a symbolic or ritualized fast. I am fasting to connect with the traditions of the Jewish people, to remind myself what day it is, and to make sure I engage in the kind of reflection appropriate for the day.
I reflect on the past year. I go month by month, focusing on accomplishments and achievements; and also on failures and shortcomings. What could I have done better? As part of that, I also recall harm or pain I might have caused another that I have not corrected. I think how I can correct or seek forgiveness for these; and make a plan to do that.
I think about the future: what are my goals, but also how can I improve myself. What parts of my character need work? And what am I going to do about it?
I also spend time thinking about what being Jewish means to me. I am strongly connected to the Jewish people and to my Jewish roots. I want preserve them, deepen them, and celebrate them. (And so I write blog posts like this)
Lastly, I reflect on any significant losses. This past year, as many know, we lost our beloved cat Sylvia. I spent some time looking at photos of Sylvia, reading the blog posts about her illness, and just letting myself miss her. It was painful, but important.
Good Yontiv, Good Fast, and Shana Tova!
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
A Secular Yom Kippur
It's that time of year again when I repost my article on Yom Kippur. Yom Kippur starts tonight.
Self-Judgment Days
Self-Judgment Days
Friday, October 03, 2008
Greater Good (Problem of Evil #1)
Welcome back to my series analyzing the problem of evil (See the opening post). The first Theodicy is: "The Greater Good".
According to this Theodicy, God is not evil because the suffering and injustice in the world serve some greater good. A dentist who has to pull a patient's infected tooth causes pain and suffering, but since this is done for the greater good, it is not an evil act. Similarly, God causes the pain and suffering in the world but these serve some greater good and so it doesn't count as evil.
One problem with this Theodicy is that it actually doesn't resolve the paradox. It denies the fourth claim that evil exists by making what appears to be evil into a means to the end of some greater good. Evil is transformed into an instrumental good.
But even ignoring this problem, this Theodicy doesn't pass the Holocaust Test. What greater good could justify the horrors of the Holocaust? This further undermines the claim that God is all-good. Even assuming that the Holocaust serves some divine purpose, that purpose must be evil if the only way to achieve it was through the Holocaust. An end that is only reachable by a means that is unjust is itself unjust.
Does such a general principle mean that the dentist is evil? This indicates a lack of clarity in this discussion. Are suffering, pain, and injustice equivalent? Injustice is irredeemable. An injustice cannot be justified by the outcomes achieved by it. It remains an injustice regardless of the outcome. Pain and suffering, on the other hand, are not like this. A pain can be justified by the outcome: as the dentist analogy shows. Notice how one's evaluation of the dentist changes if he causes more pain than necessary, has no reason for removing the tooth, does little to reduce the pain of his patient, or performs the operation without the consent of the patient. So long as the pain is serving an accepted purpose it is not deemed wrong. The pain becomes a type of injustice when it is forced upon an innocent party or where the goal of the pain is some injustice.
The Holocaust brought about the pain, suffering, and death of millions of innocent individuals. It is not, therefore, analogous to the dentist's drill. It is an injustice of cosmic proportions; and as such, it is deeply offensive or greatly confused to characterize it as an instrumental good to some divine purpose or greater good.
This Theodicy does not resolve the paradox. It moves the question of God's goodness from the current evil to the unknowable divine purpose to which this current evil is supposed to be a means. Since we are not privy to divine purposes or the greater goods the evils are supposed to serve, we are not in a position to judge the merit of these ends or goods. But, that means we are not in a position to judge God's goodness either. Thus the problem of evil remains.
According to this Theodicy, God is not evil because the suffering and injustice in the world serve some greater good. A dentist who has to pull a patient's infected tooth causes pain and suffering, but since this is done for the greater good, it is not an evil act. Similarly, God causes the pain and suffering in the world but these serve some greater good and so it doesn't count as evil.
One problem with this Theodicy is that it actually doesn't resolve the paradox. It denies the fourth claim that evil exists by making what appears to be evil into a means to the end of some greater good. Evil is transformed into an instrumental good.
But even ignoring this problem, this Theodicy doesn't pass the Holocaust Test. What greater good could justify the horrors of the Holocaust? This further undermines the claim that God is all-good. Even assuming that the Holocaust serves some divine purpose, that purpose must be evil if the only way to achieve it was through the Holocaust. An end that is only reachable by a means that is unjust is itself unjust.
Does such a general principle mean that the dentist is evil? This indicates a lack of clarity in this discussion. Are suffering, pain, and injustice equivalent? Injustice is irredeemable. An injustice cannot be justified by the outcomes achieved by it. It remains an injustice regardless of the outcome. Pain and suffering, on the other hand, are not like this. A pain can be justified by the outcome: as the dentist analogy shows. Notice how one's evaluation of the dentist changes if he causes more pain than necessary, has no reason for removing the tooth, does little to reduce the pain of his patient, or performs the operation without the consent of the patient. So long as the pain is serving an accepted purpose it is not deemed wrong. The pain becomes a type of injustice when it is forced upon an innocent party or where the goal of the pain is some injustice.
The Holocaust brought about the pain, suffering, and death of millions of innocent individuals. It is not, therefore, analogous to the dentist's drill. It is an injustice of cosmic proportions; and as such, it is deeply offensive or greatly confused to characterize it as an instrumental good to some divine purpose or greater good.
This Theodicy does not resolve the paradox. It moves the question of God's goodness from the current evil to the unknowable divine purpose to which this current evil is supposed to be a means. Since we are not privy to divine purposes or the greater goods the evils are supposed to serve, we are not in a position to judge the merit of these ends or goods. But, that means we are not in a position to judge God's goodness either. Thus the problem of evil remains.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Thoughts on the VP debate
Some initial thoughts on the debate:
Both did what I think they had to do.
Biden: try to link McCain/Palin to Bush.
Palin: bring her energy and her down home style; don't look stupid.
Weaknesses:
Biden: threw around a lot of numbers/over detailed; didn't look relaxed.
Palin: didn't give details or much substance.
Seemed like a draw to me. Nothing too surprising (or all that interesting).
These things are less debates and more a series of sound-bytes. God, I hate politics.
It's even more clear to me that I am not with either party. Fundamentally, neither the GOP or the Dems are for individual liberty.
Both did what I think they had to do.
Biden: try to link McCain/Palin to Bush.
Palin: bring her energy and her down home style; don't look stupid.
Weaknesses:
Biden: threw around a lot of numbers/over detailed; didn't look relaxed.
Palin: didn't give details or much substance.
Seemed like a draw to me. Nothing too surprising (or all that interesting).
These things are less debates and more a series of sound-bytes. God, I hate politics.
It's even more clear to me that I am not with either party. Fundamentally, neither the GOP or the Dems are for individual liberty.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
The Problem of Evil
The Problem of Evil is, I think, one of the most intriguing issues in the Philosophy of Religion.
One reason is that the problem of evil is something that actually seems to move people in terms of religious belief. I'd be surprised to learn of anyone who was convinced of the existence of God because of the argument from first cause or the argument from design. These arguments, generally, are convincing only to those who already accept the existence of a deity. And I'd be even more surprised to discover a theist who gave up his belief because the arguments for the existence of God were riddled with logical fallacies.
Yet, if you looked around and talked with someone who has either turned to faith or rejected faith, I'd bet you'd find that the Problem of Evil was a contributing factor. The existence of evil in the world appears to be something that actually influences people's belief (or non-belief) about God.
After the Holocaust many Jews, as well as other followers of other religions, gave up on faith. How could God exist and allow such evil? What kind of belief in God could make sense of the senseless murder of 6 million?
Many people reacted similarly to 9/11. How could God allow people to kill so many innocent people...and in his name no less?
And yet for others, their faith is made stronger by these events. They see God's presence in the righteous actions of those who risked their lives to save Jews or in one's own miraculous survival in the Holocaust. And many turned to faith for answers after 9/11.
Many scholars posit, as well, that the existence of evil was the impetus for the birth of religion in the first place. As ancient Man began to think of his place in the universe and reflected on his experience of great pain and suffering, he invented (or turned to, I guess, depending on one's belief). One can see this through out the Bible: God and his prophets reassuring the people that there was a reason for the pain and suffering in the world.
Another reason that the Problem of Evil fascinates is because it raises so many important philosophical questions: free will, moral responsibility, the nature of faith, the role of reason in religious belief, and basic metaphysical questions: is the universe one where God, devils, angels, miracles can exist or is it one where the supernatural is essentially nonsensical.
So, just what is The Problem of Evil?
The standard conception of God in the Western monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) is that God is Omniscient (all-knowing), Omnipotent (all-powerful), and Omni-benevolent (all-good/loving).
God is all good, so he wants to prevent suffering and injustice. He'll have the right motives.
God is all powerful, so he has the means to stop suffering and injustice.
God is all knowing, so he knows when and where suffering is occurring, so he has the opportunity.
In other words, God has the motive, means, and opportunity to prevent suffering and injustice.
And yet, suffering and injustice (evil) persist.
We have four claims:
These four claims together appear to be incompatible, but (most) theists do not want to deny these four claims. So, in attempts to resolve this paradox, theists often engage in Theodicy. From the Greek for God's Justice, Theodicy is an attempt to show that all four claims are compatible.
There are, as you can imagine, many theodicies. Over the years, I've collected the various ones I've come across, either from research or from students. In a subsequent series of posts, I will explain and analyze some of the more interesting theodicies.
A couple of ground rules and warnings for this series:
One reason is that the problem of evil is something that actually seems to move people in terms of religious belief. I'd be surprised to learn of anyone who was convinced of the existence of God because of the argument from first cause or the argument from design. These arguments, generally, are convincing only to those who already accept the existence of a deity. And I'd be even more surprised to discover a theist who gave up his belief because the arguments for the existence of God were riddled with logical fallacies.
Yet, if you looked around and talked with someone who has either turned to faith or rejected faith, I'd bet you'd find that the Problem of Evil was a contributing factor. The existence of evil in the world appears to be something that actually influences people's belief (or non-belief) about God.
After the Holocaust many Jews, as well as other followers of other religions, gave up on faith. How could God exist and allow such evil? What kind of belief in God could make sense of the senseless murder of 6 million?
Many people reacted similarly to 9/11. How could God allow people to kill so many innocent people...and in his name no less?
And yet for others, their faith is made stronger by these events. They see God's presence in the righteous actions of those who risked their lives to save Jews or in one's own miraculous survival in the Holocaust. And many turned to faith for answers after 9/11.
Many scholars posit, as well, that the existence of evil was the impetus for the birth of religion in the first place. As ancient Man began to think of his place in the universe and reflected on his experience of great pain and suffering, he invented (or turned to, I guess, depending on one's belief). One can see this through out the Bible: God and his prophets reassuring the people that there was a reason for the pain and suffering in the world.
Another reason that the Problem of Evil fascinates is because it raises so many important philosophical questions: free will, moral responsibility, the nature of faith, the role of reason in religious belief, and basic metaphysical questions: is the universe one where God, devils, angels, miracles can exist or is it one where the supernatural is essentially nonsensical.
So, just what is The Problem of Evil?
The standard conception of God in the Western monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) is that God is Omniscient (all-knowing), Omnipotent (all-powerful), and Omni-benevolent (all-good/loving).
God is all good, so he wants to prevent suffering and injustice. He'll have the right motives.
God is all powerful, so he has the means to stop suffering and injustice.
God is all knowing, so he knows when and where suffering is occurring, so he has the opportunity.
In other words, God has the motive, means, and opportunity to prevent suffering and injustice.
And yet, suffering and injustice (evil) persist.
We have four claims:
- God is all-good
- God is all-powerful
- God is all-knowing
- Evil Exists
These four claims together appear to be incompatible, but (most) theists do not want to deny these four claims. So, in attempts to resolve this paradox, theists often engage in Theodicy. From the Greek for God's Justice, Theodicy is an attempt to show that all four claims are compatible.
There are, as you can imagine, many theodicies. Over the years, I've collected the various ones I've come across, either from research or from students. In a subsequent series of posts, I will explain and analyze some of the more interesting theodicies.
A couple of ground rules and warnings for this series:
- I'm primarily interested in theodicy that maintains all four claims. One might argue, as Rabbi Kushner does in his deservedly famous When Bad Things Happen to Good People, that God is not all-powerful. Such an account makes room for the existence of evil, but it also changes the standard Omni-conception of God that most theists appear to hold.
- I am interested in hearing from others about their thoughts on these Theodicies. Since I'll be dedicating one post to a Theodicy (or a set of closely related ones), keep your comments to a post focused on the theodicy being discussed.
- I will delete any comments that do not actually contribute to the discussion: so don't bother calling me a blasphemer, engaging in witnessing or preaching, or posting a bunch of Biblical quotes about how "He's the one" or some such thing. Remember this is my website, not a community bulletin board.
- In the end, none of the theodicies work. Nonetheless, unlike many non-theists, I do not think this demonstrates the non-existence of God. It does, however, point to the basic irrationality of religious belief. I will elaborate this point in a later post that will conclude this series.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Vindication
Ron Paul has endorsed Chuck Baldwin for president. Chuck who??
Apparently someone who believes that 9/11 was a punishment from God for us kicking "Heaven out of our schools, out of our homes, and out of our hearts." And to protect our individual liberty we need to stop de-Christianizing the country. And that our national freedom is being threaten by the Internationalist, New World Order conspiracy. (Isn't that an 80's punk band? No, but it is pretty much code for the Jews)
I, and I'm sure all of us who were attacked, sometimes quite viciously, for criticizing Paul, feel vindicated by this announcement. I believe this endorsement shows what Paul thinks is most important, and to paraphrase, "it ain't the economy, stupid." Sure, Paul might be very good on economic issues, but he's just about horrible on everything else.
(Hat tips to Reason and Freespace)
(Reason has quotes and links to Chuck Baldwin's website. I don't wish to link to him.)
Apparently someone who believes that 9/11 was a punishment from God for us kicking "Heaven out of our schools, out of our homes, and out of our hearts." And to protect our individual liberty we need to stop de-Christianizing the country. And that our national freedom is being threaten by the Internationalist, New World Order conspiracy. (Isn't that an 80's punk band? No, but it is pretty much code for the Jews)
I, and I'm sure all of us who were attacked, sometimes quite viciously, for criticizing Paul, feel vindicated by this announcement. I believe this endorsement shows what Paul thinks is most important, and to paraphrase, "it ain't the economy, stupid." Sure, Paul might be very good on economic issues, but he's just about horrible on everything else.
(Hat tips to Reason and Freespace)
(Reason has quotes and links to Chuck Baldwin's website. I don't wish to link to him.)
Monday, September 22, 2008
Wither Democracy
An interesting article about the pulling back from democracy across the world. According to the article, after a period where many countries instituted various democrat reforms, many of these reforms have failed or are being dismantled. The author blames the middle class; arguing that while at first the middle class was the significant factor in bringing about democracy (by demanding the protection of their rights); the middle class has turned its back on democracy.
This may be true, but the author misses the point. It's not the middle class that is to blame--it's democracy itself. Most of these reforms were, as far as I can tell, about being able to duly elect government officials. This is after all the hallmark of democracy. And also routinely its worst and most dangerous feature.
We often confuse democracy with a free society. Democracy as a means, combined with other institutional and cultural features, is a good check on government power. The process of electing officials and routinely subjecting them to re-election can protect freedom when these officials cross the line. But when democracy itself becomes the goal, the rights of individuals are often sacrificed to the mob. If the 20th Century taught us anything its that the tyranny of the majority is no better than the tyranny of the few.
People often forget that the United States was not set up as as democracy but as a republic. (Historian and constitutional scholar David Mayer) Many features of the government are anti-democratic and are so on purpose: the President is not directly elected, the courts can overturn the legislature. These anti-democratic features are there to protect the minority of the individual from the tyranny of the majority: to protect the rights and liberties of individuals from being curtailed or stripped at the whim of 51% of the population.
It appears that as many of the countries discussed in this article shifted towards democracy, people have become disillusioned with democracy because it has not brought the protection of rights and liberties. It has brought in populist demagogues who undermine the rights and liberties for which the democratic movements fought. It is no wonder, then, that these folks are turning their backs on democracy.
This may be true, but the author misses the point. It's not the middle class that is to blame--it's democracy itself. Most of these reforms were, as far as I can tell, about being able to duly elect government officials. This is after all the hallmark of democracy. And also routinely its worst and most dangerous feature.
We often confuse democracy with a free society. Democracy as a means, combined with other institutional and cultural features, is a good check on government power. The process of electing officials and routinely subjecting them to re-election can protect freedom when these officials cross the line. But when democracy itself becomes the goal, the rights of individuals are often sacrificed to the mob. If the 20th Century taught us anything its that the tyranny of the majority is no better than the tyranny of the few.
People often forget that the United States was not set up as as democracy but as a republic. (Historian and constitutional scholar David Mayer) Many features of the government are anti-democratic and are so on purpose: the President is not directly elected, the courts can overturn the legislature. These anti-democratic features are there to protect the minority of the individual from the tyranny of the majority: to protect the rights and liberties of individuals from being curtailed or stripped at the whim of 51% of the population.
It appears that as many of the countries discussed in this article shifted towards democracy, people have become disillusioned with democracy because it has not brought the protection of rights and liberties. It has brought in populist demagogues who undermine the rights and liberties for which the democratic movements fought. It is no wonder, then, that these folks are turning their backs on democracy.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Benefits of Fandom
Here's an interesting article about the benefits of fandom.
Fans are, according to some studies, "less prone to depression, anger, and stress." Hmmmm...I must know all the exceptions.
Fans are, according to some studies, "less prone to depression, anger, and stress." Hmmmm...I must know all the exceptions.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
I Have A Dream 45 years later
Today was the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr's famous "I have a Dream" speech. I listened to the speech in its entirety this morning and was blown away. The imagery and rhetoric was beautiful. You just don't hear speakers like that any more. Moreover, it was almost shocking to hear a speech with substance. He was actually saying something meaningful, so unlike today's politicians and pundits who never say anything.
I never realized how much traditional American symbology and imagery was incorporated into the speech. It had the effect (I'm sure intended) of showing that his position was the truly American one and that the racists and segregationists were not.
I never realized how much traditional American symbology and imagery was incorporated into the speech. It had the effect (I'm sure intended) of showing that his position was the truly American one and that the racists and segregationists were not.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
That whole why do they hate us debate
One of the areas where I diverge with many (non-Objectivist-type) libertarians is over foreign policy. I surprisingly find myself often at odds with CATO, a think tank with which I often agree, on this issue. I don’t care for the term interventionist--that’s not an accurate term for how I view a rational and justifiable foreign policy--nonetheless, I am certainly not a non-interventionist or isolationist. I believe there are many cases beyond some immediate and direct threat situated at one’s geographical borders that justify military and diplomatic activity. Anyway, this post isn’t about how to define those cases. I just wanted to preface my comments below.
One of the central themes of those coming from the non-interventionist position is that Arab/Muslim anti-Americanism is primarily the result of American foreign policy and not deep cultural and value differences. Patrick Basham, a CATO adjunct scholar, purports to prove this with some recent polling data. (Why Muslims Still Hate Us)
I am no position to dispute this data (though I think one should always take polls and surveys with very large salt licks); however, I think Basham runs with the data in a misleading way.
First, why only post-9/11 polls? The Muslim hatred of the West (including America) goes back well before 2001, indeed it seems well before any significant American involvement in the Middle East. For example, the Muslim Brotherhood, one of the leading anti-Western ideological movements, was founded in the 1920s.
This is a point that the non-interventionists tend to ignore. If Muslim hatred of the US is based primarily on our foreign policy, why was their antipathy prior to any serious, prolonged military or diplomatic forays into the Middle East? A better way to state this might be: why were ideological and religious movements that were anti-West so popular?
Second, the fact that polls show, generally, positive attitudes towards many facets of American culture (movies, TV, scientific progress) doesn’t demonstrate that antipathy for the US is not based on a deep cultural and value differences.
Anecdotally, I’ve had too many arguments with anti-American types in Levis and Nikes to think that people don’t compartmentalize these things. People are quite capable of liking the products of American culture without liking the values and principles that make those products possible. That’s all this particular polling data appears to show: Muslims/Arabs enjoy many of the products of American culture. It doesn’t say anything about their points of view on the kinds of values and principles that underlie that culture: namely, individualism and the primacy of reason.
Closing Caveats:
One of the central themes of those coming from the non-interventionist position is that Arab/Muslim anti-Americanism is primarily the result of American foreign policy and not deep cultural and value differences. Patrick Basham, a CATO adjunct scholar, purports to prove this with some recent polling data. (Why Muslims Still Hate Us)
I am no position to dispute this data (though I think one should always take polls and surveys with very large salt licks); however, I think Basham runs with the data in a misleading way.
First, why only post-9/11 polls? The Muslim hatred of the West (including America) goes back well before 2001, indeed it seems well before any significant American involvement in the Middle East. For example, the Muslim Brotherhood, one of the leading anti-Western ideological movements, was founded in the 1920s.
This is a point that the non-interventionists tend to ignore. If Muslim hatred of the US is based primarily on our foreign policy, why was their antipathy prior to any serious, prolonged military or diplomatic forays into the Middle East? A better way to state this might be: why were ideological and religious movements that were anti-West so popular?
Second, the fact that polls show, generally, positive attitudes towards many facets of American culture (movies, TV, scientific progress) doesn’t demonstrate that antipathy for the US is not based on a deep cultural and value differences.
Anecdotally, I’ve had too many arguments with anti-American types in Levis and Nikes to think that people don’t compartmentalize these things. People are quite capable of liking the products of American culture without liking the values and principles that make those products possible. That’s all this particular polling data appears to show: Muslims/Arabs enjoy many of the products of American culture. It doesn’t say anything about their points of view on the kinds of values and principles that underlie that culture: namely, individualism and the primacy of reason.
Closing Caveats:
- I am not saying that all Muslims or Arabs are anti-individualism or irrational. But, that many of the widespread, popular ideological movements in the Arab and Muslim worlds are.
- I am not saying that our often irresponsible and unprincipled foreign policy hasn’t created or increased antipathy towards the US. My point is just that to say this is the primary cause is putting the cart before the horse.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Potty Mouthed Philosophers
First there was Bullshit, now Mindfucking.
Mindfucking: A Critique of Mental Manipulation
By Colin McGinn
Actually, looks interesting and McGinn is usually a relatively clear writer, so it's been added to my wishlist.
Mindfucking: A Critique of Mental Manipulation
By Colin McGinn
Actually, looks interesting and McGinn is usually a relatively clear writer, so it's been added to my wishlist.
Dr. Horrible and Captain Hammer
Superhero musical, anyone?
Dr. Horrible's Sing-along Blog
Starring: Neal Patrick Harris, Nathan Fillion, and Felicia Day. Produced by Joss Whedon.
Dr. Horrible's Sing-along Blog
Starring: Neal Patrick Harris, Nathan Fillion, and Felicia Day. Produced by Joss Whedon.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Business and Economic Ethics
Though I am not teaching it this fall, here's the video for Business and Economics Ethics:
(Here's the link if you have trouble: http://video.yahoo.com/watch/2919121/8359891)
(Here's the link if you have trouble: http://video.yahoo.com/watch/2919121/8359891)
Sports Ethics Promo
Here's the promotional video for the debut of PHI 276: Sports Ethics.
(Here's the link if you have trouble: http://video.yahoo.com/watch/2919387/8360583)
(Here's the link if you have trouble: http://video.yahoo.com/watch/2919387/8360583)
Introduction to Philosophy Promo Video
Developed by Rockford College's Center for Ethics and Entrepreneurship, the next few posts are promotional videos for my fall courses. Here's the first one, for RC's PHI 103: Introduction to Philosophy:
Shawn E. Klein - Introduction to Philosophy - PHIL 103 - Rockford College @ Yahoo! Video
(Here's the link if you have trouble with the above: http://video.yahoo.com/watch/3430367/9572669 )
Shawn E. Klein - Introduction to Philosophy - PHIL 103 - Rockford College @ Yahoo! Video
(Here's the link if you have trouble with the above: http://video.yahoo.com/watch/3430367/9572669 )
Monday, June 23, 2008
George Carlin, 1937-2008
George Carlin has died at the age of 71 from apparent heart failure. (NYT Obit)
Carlin was a modern-day Socratic gadfly--a real philosopher. Like Socrates, Carlin stood in front of society and pushed them to question the way they lived. His best bits were usually about how we use words and language. He wasn't just a cunning linguist (oh, how he'd love that!); his humor brought out the personal assumptions and social implications of the words we use. He saw the connection between thought, language, and action; and that the attempt to control language is an attempt to control one's thoughts and actions.
This is of course best exemplified in his Seven Words You Can't Say on Television:
Carlin was one of the first stand-up comedians that I remember. His Carnegie hall show, that I think was on HBO in the 80s, was one of the first extended stand-up routines that I saw and it started my love of stand-up. (Along with Bill Cosby and Eddie Murphy) I can still see all the chairs piled up behind him on the stage as Carlin riffed on the behavior of cats and dogs.
His humor was also a biting social criticism--often, as the years went by, at growing distance from my own views--yet still witty and funny. Carlin was a rare a talent that had the ability to piss off just about everyone: he attacked religion, politicians, feminists, and conservatives of all stripes. Carlin had no truck for bullshit of any kind and where he sensed someone trying to get away with something, he attacked them vigorously and thoroughly. Sadly, in his waning years, Carlin got much too bitter and angry; and this detracted from my enjoyment of his more recent work.
Just this Friday, I was watching several of his older bits on YouTube. (This was 'research' for my upcoming talk on "Bullshit".) They were still funny as ever. Thank you George Carlin.
Carlin was a modern-day Socratic gadfly--a real philosopher. Like Socrates, Carlin stood in front of society and pushed them to question the way they lived. His best bits were usually about how we use words and language. He wasn't just a cunning linguist (oh, how he'd love that!); his humor brought out the personal assumptions and social implications of the words we use. He saw the connection between thought, language, and action; and that the attempt to control language is an attempt to control one's thoughts and actions.
This is of course best exemplified in his Seven Words You Can't Say on Television:
Carlin was one of the first stand-up comedians that I remember. His Carnegie hall show, that I think was on HBO in the 80s, was one of the first extended stand-up routines that I saw and it started my love of stand-up. (Along with Bill Cosby and Eddie Murphy) I can still see all the chairs piled up behind him on the stage as Carlin riffed on the behavior of cats and dogs.
His humor was also a biting social criticism--often, as the years went by, at growing distance from my own views--yet still witty and funny. Carlin was a rare a talent that had the ability to piss off just about everyone: he attacked religion, politicians, feminists, and conservatives of all stripes. Carlin had no truck for bullshit of any kind and where he sensed someone trying to get away with something, he attacked them vigorously and thoroughly. Sadly, in his waning years, Carlin got much too bitter and angry; and this detracted from my enjoyment of his more recent work.
Just this Friday, I was watching several of his older bits on YouTube. (This was 'research' for my upcoming talk on "Bullshit".) They were still funny as ever. Thank you George Carlin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
