I
live in Canada. In Canada, particularly in Ontario, I live amongst
people who come from different backgrounds. Does this mean that moral
values are relative? Let’s take the case of Honor killing. In some
cultures like those of Afghanistan and India, honor killing is being
practiced especially on females who have ‘wronged’ their fathers.
Relativists would say that since there is no such thing as absolute
morality, then ‘honor killing’ may be good or bad depending on the
culture and situation.
I
can understand why criminals are punished: they harm and kill people
with a malicious intention. I don’t think any relativist can ever say,
upon seeing their loved ones being murdered, that the act is relatively
good or bad. If they do, they must be extremely detached and insensitive
to human suffering and injustice. Perhaps, relativists are armchaired
philosophers who resist any show of or being affected by sympathy.
Since
murder (not killing) is evil in whatever context, then it implies that
we have a responsibility towards the others. Our responsibility towards
the others makes this ethical value absolute in whatever context.
So,
to speak of honor killing or to term it as such is a confusion of terms,
of responsibility or the sheer lack of it. Honor is “a perceived
quality of worthiness and respectability “. In which case, there is no
such thing as ‘honor killing’. For the man who killed his daughters just
because he didn’t like what the daughters did (which was to love a man,
or dress like a Westerner), he not only brought dishonor to himself but
also display a blatant disregard for human life. What he did was not
out of honor, but out of shame of being humiliated. He cared only for
his image and what his peers of the same mind would think of him. He
cared nothing for his daughters. Honor is about character, self respect,
self worth, despite what others say of himself.
A
man who has no respect for life cannot claim to have honor. A man who
cares only for his image of his self has no honor. A man who has no
worth has no right to speak of honor, in honor. What he did was simple
and plain murder, the malicious intention of killing a human being whom
he perceived as a means or an object for his own pleasure of ‘looking
good’ in the eyes of those who are equally sick.
Thou
shalt not kill; or, better still thou shalt not murder is a universal
ethics. It implies a universal respect for human life. Ethics is not and
should never be an object of cool and detached contemplation. It is
rather a subject to be reflected upon, to be thought of based on the
experiences of others who are in genuine pain. Only in this way, can one
feel the pain of the others as one painfully but meaningfully transform
the experience into a subject of genuine philosophical reflection.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Sunday, January 22, 2012
What glitters is not necessarily gold: The Golden Rule
I thought that the golden rule was simple and straightforward and anybody, who read these words, would know what the rule meant. Following it was a different story. Or, perhaps, it was not a different story. If people who understood the golden rule still got them wrong, then either they didn’t really understand the message, or that they showed no care for it.
At any rate, I took the message for granted and believed that the message was as easy as A, B, C. But I was wrong. Misunderstanding was prevalent.
For instance, someone - let’s name him Lucas - had told me that the golden rule applied only to his circle of family and friends. It did not count for those outside the circle. These outsiders, he argued, must first prove their worth to him. Their actions, however good or bad, were to determine his reactions towards the outsiders.
The golden rule states “Do unto others as you want others to do unto you.” This rule, Lucas says, applies to his circle of family and friends, but not to outsiders. Yet, he turned the rule on its head by arguing that: “Since they are outsiders, he treats them with suspicion (or unfriendliness). He expects that they would also treat him with suspicion. Hence, “since I treat the other with suspicion, I wouldn’t mind being treated with suspicion, for I would expect him to do so just as I would to him”.
"So, says Lucas, "If the other treats me unfairly, then I will treat him unfairly many times over. On the other hand, if he treats me with kindness, then I will render my kindness to him many times over".
This is how he understands the golden rule. He’s not the only one with that mindset. In fact, there are many of them. How do you understand the golden rule? Are you with him?
At any rate, I took the message for granted and believed that the message was as easy as A, B, C. But I was wrong. Misunderstanding was prevalent.
For instance, someone - let’s name him Lucas - had told me that the golden rule applied only to his circle of family and friends. It did not count for those outside the circle. These outsiders, he argued, must first prove their worth to him. Their actions, however good or bad, were to determine his reactions towards the outsiders.
The golden rule states “Do unto others as you want others to do unto you.” This rule, Lucas says, applies to his circle of family and friends, but not to outsiders. Yet, he turned the rule on its head by arguing that: “Since they are outsiders, he treats them with suspicion (or unfriendliness). He expects that they would also treat him with suspicion. Hence, “since I treat the other with suspicion, I wouldn’t mind being treated with suspicion, for I would expect him to do so just as I would to him”.
"So, says Lucas, "If the other treats me unfairly, then I will treat him unfairly many times over. On the other hand, if he treats me with kindness, then I will render my kindness to him many times over".
This is how he understands the golden rule. He’s not the only one with that mindset. In fact, there are many of them. How do you understand the golden rule? Are you with him?
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Atheists don't read stories that don't sell
Not
all atheists are alike. On the one hand, you have the hard core
atheists who demand that others, like believers, open their eyes to the
reality in which no deity can exist. God, they argue, cannot exist for
the simple and undeniable fact that evil exists. Religion is dangerous
and violent, and it’s time that people outgrow their psychological
dependence on their childish images of the old white bearded man in the
clouds.
On the other hand, you have atheists, like Alain de Botton, who recognize some merits to holding on to religion. To quote Alain de Bottom, Religion "teaches us to be polite, to honour one another, to be faithful and sober", as well as instructing us in "the charms of community". On Alain de Botton’s Religion for Atheists: “De Botton’s inspiring new book suggests that rather than mocking religions, agnostics and atheists should in fact steal from them. He boldly argues that the supernatural claims of religion are of course entirely false - but that religions still have some very important things to teach the secular world. “
In other words, religion, for the sympathetic atheists like de Botton, is socially useful. Without religion, there would be moral and social unrest that would spell the end of civilization.
But what does it mean for something or someone to be perceived as useful? For something to be useful, it serves a purpose outside itself. For example, the sharp pointed branch is useful in times of armed struggle, if one can not purchase a knife. The branch can be used for anything, e.g., killing, defending one’s self, or for any other use aside from killing, defending one’s self, such as sticking it deep into the ground to be used as a peg. Another example of use is when I treat another person as a means for my own selfish purposes.
Alain de Botton therefore perceives morality, as taught in religion, as a means for social cohesion. He means that the usefulness of doing good to to the other, is not performed for the sake of the person in front of me, but for the sake of keeping intact the group to which I, and possibly the other, belong. The act is right not because it is the right thing to do. It is right because it sustains the group.
I have no argument against those atheists if they are referring to a group of people who, out of fear or habit, attend mass every Sunday, or who act as Christians or Muslims or Jews because they’re conscious that others are watching their every step; or, who interpret the religious texts to their liking. In other words, I don’t mind at all when the sympathetic atheists like de Botton say that religion is useful for as long as they are referring to a group of people who manipulate religion to suit their psychological dependence. The idea that religion is socially useful is valid because people’s behavior made it so.
However, when you consider those believers who are psychologically independent, truth seekers who have no regard as to how Truth appears to them; those who perform genuine acts of self sacrifice, and who expect nothing, I repeat, expect nothing in return, not even salvation for their sakes, atheists keep mum about them, as though they don’t count. As though, they don’t exist.
I say this at least: these psychologically independent, highly spiritual beings exist. And, they, not the psychologically dependent ones, are the ones whom one should study and emulate to be able to understand what religion really is all about. So, why are they not being talked about? It’s simple: they, with the exception of the Dalai Lama, are not popular. They are few. They don’t make the news. For the media, they are stories that don't sell. And, atheists don't read them.
On the other hand, you have atheists, like Alain de Botton, who recognize some merits to holding on to religion. To quote Alain de Bottom, Religion "teaches us to be polite, to honour one another, to be faithful and sober", as well as instructing us in "the charms of community". On Alain de Botton’s Religion for Atheists: “De Botton’s inspiring new book suggests that rather than mocking religions, agnostics and atheists should in fact steal from them. He boldly argues that the supernatural claims of religion are of course entirely false - but that religions still have some very important things to teach the secular world. “
In other words, religion, for the sympathetic atheists like de Botton, is socially useful. Without religion, there would be moral and social unrest that would spell the end of civilization.
But what does it mean for something or someone to be perceived as useful? For something to be useful, it serves a purpose outside itself. For example, the sharp pointed branch is useful in times of armed struggle, if one can not purchase a knife. The branch can be used for anything, e.g., killing, defending one’s self, or for any other use aside from killing, defending one’s self, such as sticking it deep into the ground to be used as a peg. Another example of use is when I treat another person as a means for my own selfish purposes.
Alain de Botton therefore perceives morality, as taught in religion, as a means for social cohesion. He means that the usefulness of doing good to to the other, is not performed for the sake of the person in front of me, but for the sake of keeping intact the group to which I, and possibly the other, belong. The act is right not because it is the right thing to do. It is right because it sustains the group.
I have no argument against those atheists if they are referring to a group of people who, out of fear or habit, attend mass every Sunday, or who act as Christians or Muslims or Jews because they’re conscious that others are watching their every step; or, who interpret the religious texts to their liking. In other words, I don’t mind at all when the sympathetic atheists like de Botton say that religion is useful for as long as they are referring to a group of people who manipulate religion to suit their psychological dependence. The idea that religion is socially useful is valid because people’s behavior made it so.
However, when you consider those believers who are psychologically independent, truth seekers who have no regard as to how Truth appears to them; those who perform genuine acts of self sacrifice, and who expect nothing, I repeat, expect nothing in return, not even salvation for their sakes, atheists keep mum about them, as though they don’t count. As though, they don’t exist.
I say this at least: these psychologically independent, highly spiritual beings exist. And, they, not the psychologically dependent ones, are the ones whom one should study and emulate to be able to understand what religion really is all about. So, why are they not being talked about? It’s simple: they, with the exception of the Dalai Lama, are not popular. They are few. They don’t make the news. For the media, they are stories that don't sell. And, atheists don't read them.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
How should I approach the other when invited to a discussion?
There are 3 approaches. If I have left anything out, please let us know.
You are my enemy
I meet my enemy in a battleground. I call it a battleground because there is every intention of winning, and of making the loser look bad. In a battleground, there is at least one self centered individual or party who listens to no opinion but his. He has only one agenda, namely, to win the individual to his side. Any objection to his view (or, what appears to be an objection) is perceived as an affront on his set of beliefs, his personality.
Is there a loser? Yes: you have the loser who lost, the loser who won; and the biggest loser of all: truth that nobody seems to care about.
Socratic Method In this scenario, you are engaged with another person in a discussion. You listen and ask question while the other gives you his take on the topic. You are on the lookout for loopholes in his argument. You cross examine him on his assumptions and sets of belief. It's alright if you don't have the answer; but the whole point of this exercise is to get the other person to admit his state of ignorance and to eventually become humble. But, how many of us would be willing to admit how painfully ignorant we are about which we believe ourselves to be knowledgeable? I would say, very few – and this is because these few have in them, from the very beginning, a sense of humility; while the many felt, not humility, but humiliation. While this approach may work on some people, I wouldn’t apply this on someone with a big, fat ego.
Doctor-patient relationship In a doctor patient relationship, the doctor begins by posing some questions to the patient. The whole idea of this activity is to come up with the most accurate diagnosis. Unless, it is very clear what the patient is suffering from – for example, a simple, non chronic headache – then the doctor patiently continues with his questioning. With this tender approach and the doctor’s caring attitude, the patient learns to trust him. Patient desperately helps the doctor to help himself. In this assist-being assisted - if the cure is found - the patient is cured.
Similarly, you can help the person who is in search for a spiritual meaning in his life, by listening to his judgment about his life. His problem, I think, lies in his inability (or, fear) to see, objectively, how certain beliefs about himself or life in general, impedes him from considering adopting other beliefs that could expand his views, thus improve the quality of his experience.
For more discussion on this approach similar to this, click on philosophical counseling
I would love to read your comments.
You are my enemy
I meet my enemy in a battleground. I call it a battleground because there is every intention of winning, and of making the loser look bad. In a battleground, there is at least one self centered individual or party who listens to no opinion but his. He has only one agenda, namely, to win the individual to his side. Any objection to his view (or, what appears to be an objection) is perceived as an affront on his set of beliefs, his personality.
Is there a loser? Yes: you have the loser who lost, the loser who won; and the biggest loser of all: truth that nobody seems to care about.
Socratic Method In this scenario, you are engaged with another person in a discussion. You listen and ask question while the other gives you his take on the topic. You are on the lookout for loopholes in his argument. You cross examine him on his assumptions and sets of belief. It's alright if you don't have the answer; but the whole point of this exercise is to get the other person to admit his state of ignorance and to eventually become humble. But, how many of us would be willing to admit how painfully ignorant we are about which we believe ourselves to be knowledgeable? I would say, very few – and this is because these few have in them, from the very beginning, a sense of humility; while the many felt, not humility, but humiliation. While this approach may work on some people, I wouldn’t apply this on someone with a big, fat ego.
Doctor-patient relationship In a doctor patient relationship, the doctor begins by posing some questions to the patient. The whole idea of this activity is to come up with the most accurate diagnosis. Unless, it is very clear what the patient is suffering from – for example, a simple, non chronic headache – then the doctor patiently continues with his questioning. With this tender approach and the doctor’s caring attitude, the patient learns to trust him. Patient desperately helps the doctor to help himself. In this assist-being assisted - if the cure is found - the patient is cured.
Similarly, you can help the person who is in search for a spiritual meaning in his life, by listening to his judgment about his life. His problem, I think, lies in his inability (or, fear) to see, objectively, how certain beliefs about himself or life in general, impedes him from considering adopting other beliefs that could expand his views, thus improve the quality of his experience.
For more discussion on this approach similar to this, click on philosophical counseling
I would love to read your comments.
Sunday, January 1, 2012
A 10 Minute Drive: From Phenomenology To Situational Truth
I picked up Christopher from work. As soon as he got into the car, he asked me - as he always does - a philosophical question.
“Dad, what is the way to Truth?”
“What do you mean?” I asked
“Well, I’m not asking for the nature of truth,” Chris explained, “How does one deal with truth? I mean, how does one stay on the right path?”
“You’re asking for a certain way of finding the truth? An approach? A method?” I asked.
“Yeah, you can say that. Dad, you mentioned phenomenology the other day. What is it?”
It takes about 10 minutes from his work place to arrive home. How do you explain phenomenology in 10 minutes or less?
“Well, phenomenology is a method of understanding the essence of things, that is, the meaning for being what they are. Everyone has biases and prejudices, whether they are derived from studies or they are irrational. Some of these judgments are not false. Some are scientifically verified. But, these scientifically verified statements were formed from a standpoint that may have nothing to do with the essence of a thing.
By exploring an essence of a thing, I am referring to our immediate experience of an essence of a thing. By immediate experience, I mean, an unadulterated experience prior to the formation of biases and prejudices. To focus your attention on the immediate experience, you need to put aside or ‘bracket’ out these biases and prejudices. Bracketing them out does not mean that they are false or that you are skeptical of them. On the contrary, bracketing is a way of suspending your judgment as you go on your own finding the essence.. Eventually, some of them are taken into consideration after realizing that some of them may after all be part of the essence of a thing.”
“But, can we really let go of our biases and prejudices? Asked Chris, “We can try, but there’s no guarantee that we can put aside all of our biases and prejudices.”
“I don’t think that you or anyone can completely put aside your biases and prejudices, especially the ones that you’re blind to, despite your efforts. It’s the deeply rooted biases and prejudices that escape scrutiny. Now, is phenomenology a total failure? It depends on how you look at it. Insofar searching for the essence, I think phenomenology failed. However, I like its spirit, its intention. Phenomenology assumes that a lone individual can find the truth. That’s a problem. However, if you desire to be truthful, then you’ll realize that you can’t do it on your own. No one individual can.”
“What do you mean? Are you saying that an individual, a specially gifted individual like Gandhi, Mandela, Jesus, or Confucius, in his moment of silence, contemplation, of seclusion, didn’t discover the truth?” Chris was puzzled.
[It contradicts the common notion of a lone wise person, who leaves the pack and stays secluded for a number of years in a place known only to him, only to resurface and reconnect with the multitude who are in need of a moral compass.]
“Chris, I have no doubt that they have a great capacity for knowing the truth, more than most people. But do you think any of them has the monopoly of Truth? I am pretty sure that one knows something that the other has overlooked. Maybe, it’s my bias, but I consider them human beings. But, if you consider one of them to be a god, then I will just have to say, Amen. I cannot pretend to know what only the gods know.something. Socrates was aware of his ignorance.. He said: ‘I know nothing beyond this earth and below it. I only know what is human.’ Or, something to that effect. So, neither you nor II can talk or should want to pretend to know about things that only non human beings know. For instance, ‘is there life after life? It sure is tempting to say that it exists. In all honesty, I do not know about it the way I know my experiences and the steering wheel in front of me, and the driver’s seat I am sitting on, and you beside me, and home, and we’re just about 5 minutes away.”
So, let us talk about human beings, and limit ourselves to what they can know. I am pretty certain that every individual has his own set of biases and prejudices. All he can do is minimize their influence or at least be aware of them; Whatever he claims to be truthful will always be influenced by his history, background, education, to name a few. In other words, he can arrive at truthful statements that others can learn from him; but there will be others who, unlike him, have their own and equally valid interpretation. Each interpretation, it seems to me, has a blind spot that others can fill. Others, needless to say, have their own blind spots. Nothing wrong with blind spots. It is part of being human, limited to time and space.
I think it’s a humble way of looking at truth - that is, truthful statements - and of recognizing that there are various interpretations of a given situation. It’s a humble way because when you realize that no matter how honest and earnest you are in finding the truth (truthful statement) that you believe not only applies to you but to the others well, you will also learn the habit of being critical and open to other ideas.
“Well, we’re home.”
Chris got off first and head for the door. He has work the following day, and I am expected to pick him up. I don’t have to be fortune teller to know that, when I pick him up, he’s going to greet me with another question.
“Dad, what is the way to Truth?”
“What do you mean?” I asked
“Well, I’m not asking for the nature of truth,” Chris explained, “How does one deal with truth? I mean, how does one stay on the right path?”
“You’re asking for a certain way of finding the truth? An approach? A method?” I asked.
“Yeah, you can say that. Dad, you mentioned phenomenology the other day. What is it?”
It takes about 10 minutes from his work place to arrive home. How do you explain phenomenology in 10 minutes or less?
“Well, phenomenology is a method of understanding the essence of things, that is, the meaning for being what they are. Everyone has biases and prejudices, whether they are derived from studies or they are irrational. Some of these judgments are not false. Some are scientifically verified. But, these scientifically verified statements were formed from a standpoint that may have nothing to do with the essence of a thing.
By exploring an essence of a thing, I am referring to our immediate experience of an essence of a thing. By immediate experience, I mean, an unadulterated experience prior to the formation of biases and prejudices. To focus your attention on the immediate experience, you need to put aside or ‘bracket’ out these biases and prejudices. Bracketing them out does not mean that they are false or that you are skeptical of them. On the contrary, bracketing is a way of suspending your judgment as you go on your own finding the essence.. Eventually, some of them are taken into consideration after realizing that some of them may after all be part of the essence of a thing.”
“But, can we really let go of our biases and prejudices? Asked Chris, “We can try, but there’s no guarantee that we can put aside all of our biases and prejudices.”
“I don’t think that you or anyone can completely put aside your biases and prejudices, especially the ones that you’re blind to, despite your efforts. It’s the deeply rooted biases and prejudices that escape scrutiny. Now, is phenomenology a total failure? It depends on how you look at it. Insofar searching for the essence, I think phenomenology failed. However, I like its spirit, its intention. Phenomenology assumes that a lone individual can find the truth. That’s a problem. However, if you desire to be truthful, then you’ll realize that you can’t do it on your own. No one individual can.”
“What do you mean? Are you saying that an individual, a specially gifted individual like Gandhi, Mandela, Jesus, or Confucius, in his moment of silence, contemplation, of seclusion, didn’t discover the truth?” Chris was puzzled.
[It contradicts the common notion of a lone wise person, who leaves the pack and stays secluded for a number of years in a place known only to him, only to resurface and reconnect with the multitude who are in need of a moral compass.]
“Chris, I have no doubt that they have a great capacity for knowing the truth, more than most people. But do you think any of them has the monopoly of Truth? I am pretty sure that one knows something that the other has overlooked. Maybe, it’s my bias, but I consider them human beings. But, if you consider one of them to be a god, then I will just have to say, Amen. I cannot pretend to know what only the gods know.something. Socrates was aware of his ignorance.. He said: ‘I know nothing beyond this earth and below it. I only know what is human.’ Or, something to that effect. So, neither you nor II can talk or should want to pretend to know about things that only non human beings know. For instance, ‘is there life after life? It sure is tempting to say that it exists. In all honesty, I do not know about it the way I know my experiences and the steering wheel in front of me, and the driver’s seat I am sitting on, and you beside me, and home, and we’re just about 5 minutes away.”
So, let us talk about human beings, and limit ourselves to what they can know. I am pretty certain that every individual has his own set of biases and prejudices. All he can do is minimize their influence or at least be aware of them; Whatever he claims to be truthful will always be influenced by his history, background, education, to name a few. In other words, he can arrive at truthful statements that others can learn from him; but there will be others who, unlike him, have their own and equally valid interpretation. Each interpretation, it seems to me, has a blind spot that others can fill. Others, needless to say, have their own blind spots. Nothing wrong with blind spots. It is part of being human, limited to time and space.
I think it’s a humble way of looking at truth - that is, truthful statements - and of recognizing that there are various interpretations of a given situation. It’s a humble way because when you realize that no matter how honest and earnest you are in finding the truth (truthful statement) that you believe not only applies to you but to the others well, you will also learn the habit of being critical and open to other ideas.
“Well, we’re home.”
Chris got off first and head for the door. He has work the following day, and I am expected to pick him up. I don’t have to be fortune teller to know that, when I pick him up, he’s going to greet me with another question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)