Just for clarification, "the rub" refers to where you have a problem with something in philosophy. Totally technical term.
I've been putting off writing this one for a while, because I'm unsure how to proceed, so let me review the key notions that bring me to this issue:
Causal relationship between utterances and actions.
Oaths being taken.
Objectivism- appeals to a fact of the matter intrinsic to the universe.
Absoloutism- oaths are not to ever be violated.
So, naturally, we come to a situation in which we have a complete pacifist, Jim, scootin along in a jungle until he comes upon a scene where some Indians are about to be executed. The leader of the soldiers sees you as an honored foreigner, and decides to give Jim a choice: kill one, save the rest, or do nothing, and let them all die.
So, I'm rather sure that everyone will go for the former option, because one life to save a large number of others is a reasonable exchange to common sense.
Yet, Pedro is essentially put into a situation in which he must make a choice, both of which end with at least one person being killed. While there's something to be spoken of when it comes to actively or passively killing people, the rub exists in his inner conflict.
Should he contradict his devotion to pacifism in order to save a large amount of people? Mind you, he does have to kill the man himself.
Originally, when I considered this situation, I spoke of it as a situation that will never happen, and that it is set up precisely in such a way that there's only one decent choice to make. Coming from a D&D background, I hate this thought experiment. It doesn't even give you the option to kill the guards, the leader, or sacrifice yourself in place of the Indians. Furthermore, it's strange that the men lined up are not given a chance to speak with Jim, since self-sacrifice is something prized in Indian culture. But, even though I tossed this story by the wayside before as unfair, it does represent an issue inherent in my moral structure.
If directly contradicting an oath is the only way to bring about a better state of affairs, then should it be done on moral grounds?
Short answer, yes.
Long answer:
There are at least two ways to approach the situation now. The first, and easiest, lies in the oath-taking process. If there happens to be a "fail-safe oath" which comes to essentially mean "if it ever is the case that contradicting an oath will directly lead to a better overall state of affairs, then I will do so." The issue with this, the consequentialist will say, is that what is essentially being allowed here is a fallback to utility just because deontology doesn't cut it, and has a deficiency here. Is it really a fallback move? Certainly, but knowing when to retreat is essential in war. If nothing else, at the end of the day, isn't morality supposed to bring about a better state of affairs because people will act in a certain way?
The second, without the fail-safe, is for Jim to commit a kind of "moral suicide," where he directly contradicts one of his foundational principles, pacifism, in order that he might slay one man to save many. Having the contradiction, the problem now comes to what he should do next. I think what has to happen next is that Jim needs to reinvent himself from the ground up, in light of the strange experience he has just had. Can he go back to being a pacifist? If he does, what's the point, given that another situation may happen just like when he came upon the Indians.
And here is the problem. What ought one do in situations when it is clearly the better thing to do to contradict promises that have been made? Well, initially in order to protect or save lives sounds very acceptable to me. My dedication to morality doesn't outweigh other peoples' lives, if they are at stake and I can do something about it. I think this should be the main criterion for contradicting promises, if lives are at stake. For, if oaths are made and consistently broken because to do so simply brings seemingly better things about, then the oaths don't mean much. Yet, they pale in comparison to lives being on the line.
So, my answer is essentially "An oath may be broken if doing so will save lives through its breaking."
From here I need to do some more thinking and reading, because inherent in this is a kind of "duty ranking," because I obviously think that saving lives is a greater duty than simply keeping to an oath, in Jim's case, pacifism.
There's more to be said on this contradiction stuff, like:
You're a man of your word.
Your best friend makes you promise to not tell his wife that he's cheating on her.
The wife has a right to know that something is affecting her marriage.
Stuff like this does come about.
As for my answer, another criticism to be laid at it is "If you're willing to lay aside an oath to bring about an overall better state of affairs, then why not just use utility to guide you?"
My response to that is this: Always going for the greatest ratio of good stuff over bad can easily lead to one committing betrayal, which I'll not countenance.
Yay, philosophy!
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
More On Oaths
Forgive my lack of updates. Midterms and an increasing workload do not mix well with me. As an aside, I do have the two Wheel of Time RPG books now, and I can't wait until I get a game in with them!
Today I want to talk about the stringency of oaths.
That is, to what strictness ought an oath, once taken be held?
Here I am going to talk about objectivism and absolutism, with the real juicy bits to follow along that bring up problems for this concept.
To begin with objectivism. The notion is that there is a fact of the matter in moral discourse, that we appeal to a kind of truth which may be given to us by a deity, or may be "woven" into the fabric of the universe. There's this fellow, Shafer-Landau, and if you read his book, Whatever Happened To Good and Evil?, he'll claim that we at least, when we speak to one another about common topics and morality, we act as if there is some fact of the matter. There is one thing about objectivism, and aspect that it has that I prefer over other stances to the subject:
Moral Progress. Yes, they're capitalized.
What this means in perspective is that only through objectivism may we at least say that, indeed, we are closer to emulating the moral truth, which makes us better.
If it is not objectivism, then one cannot say that moral progress exists. This tends to scare people, since, and I hate to pull a reductio ad hitlerum, only with objectivism can we say that Nazism is morally wrong.
This fits with oaths because morality is based outside of us, we swear to principles, or by Gods.
Now, as to stringency, there are two options: absolute and contingent. By absolute I mean there is a complete correlation between the promise and actions. Contingent allows for situational allowances to be allowed when certain stimuli are present. What I think oaths are getting at is absolute oath-taking, for we do not expect the President to lay aside his duties because of factor X, or violate his marriage in the oval office because a young lady was available.
So, the position I personally adopt is oath-based absolute objectivism.
I do what I say, I am reliable, and can be depended upon to get the job done.
To end this, I have to bring up the principle problem for this kind of objectivism, and it's all about this story called "Jim and the Indians."
Link!
So, the man's a pacifist, and is put in a position in which the best thing to do is contradict his devotion to pacifism.
So, the question is: Ought we abandon a position like mine because these kind of situations exist?
Been working on that, and I'll have what I hope to be a good answer next time!
Today I want to talk about the stringency of oaths.
That is, to what strictness ought an oath, once taken be held?
Here I am going to talk about objectivism and absolutism, with the real juicy bits to follow along that bring up problems for this concept.
To begin with objectivism. The notion is that there is a fact of the matter in moral discourse, that we appeal to a kind of truth which may be given to us by a deity, or may be "woven" into the fabric of the universe. There's this fellow, Shafer-Landau, and if you read his book, Whatever Happened To Good and Evil?, he'll claim that we at least, when we speak to one another about common topics and morality, we act as if there is some fact of the matter. There is one thing about objectivism, and aspect that it has that I prefer over other stances to the subject:
Moral Progress. Yes, they're capitalized.
What this means in perspective is that only through objectivism may we at least say that, indeed, we are closer to emulating the moral truth, which makes us better.
If it is not objectivism, then one cannot say that moral progress exists. This tends to scare people, since, and I hate to pull a reductio ad hitlerum, only with objectivism can we say that Nazism is morally wrong.
This fits with oaths because morality is based outside of us, we swear to principles, or by Gods.
Now, as to stringency, there are two options: absolute and contingent. By absolute I mean there is a complete correlation between the promise and actions. Contingent allows for situational allowances to be allowed when certain stimuli are present. What I think oaths are getting at is absolute oath-taking, for we do not expect the President to lay aside his duties because of factor X, or violate his marriage in the oval office because a young lady was available.
So, the position I personally adopt is oath-based absolute objectivism.
I do what I say, I am reliable, and can be depended upon to get the job done.
To end this, I have to bring up the principle problem for this kind of objectivism, and it's all about this story called "Jim and the Indians."
Link!
So, the man's a pacifist, and is put in a position in which the best thing to do is contradict his devotion to pacifism.
So, the question is: Ought we abandon a position like mine because these kind of situations exist?
Been working on that, and I'll have what I hope to be a good answer next time!
Monday, September 5, 2011
Oaths
So, there happens to be a philosophy paper that I'm considering submitting to an undergraduate journal to try to get published. While my edits will not necessarily be about the material I'm going to speak on here, it maintains its relevance because oaths are a part of our culture that still exists, yet is not spoken of nor explained during our education. 'Ere we go!
Before any mention of the modern relevance of oaths, it will be useful to talk about how our cultural ancestors set up their societies such that when an oath was given, you fucking keep it, or you'll get a lightning bolt right up your ass! There is always a reason for a God to have a certain aspect, otherwise a God would not have it. Everybody's favorite party God, Dionysos, is really a combination of different aspects that come from what he's associated with: wine. The Greeks, in their own way, learned that wine and alcohol have their own curative properties, from cleaning a wound with strong booze, or drinking to feel better. Heck, Greek theater, the realm of Dionysos is most well-known among the ancients because of the cathartic feelings experienced during performances, was believed to have special healing powers because of that release of pent-up emotions among the people. Or rather, dudes.
So, Gods have aspects because for a reason: because the Greeks found it important!
Enter Zeus, the pimp daddy of Olympus. Symbol of masculinity and virility, Zeus is the embodiment of the adolescent fantasy of being powerful, authoritative, and capable of taking different forms and ravishing every beautiful woman one takes a fancy to. He's also the Greek justification for the power of the old kings, like Agamemnon. So, the importance of oaths needs to be shown in this particular culture. Let's look at the Iliad, since I've already mentioned Agamemnon and Zeus. Alright, this all begins with the Goddess Eris not being invited to the marriage of Peleus and Thetis, and she gets pissed. So, she nabs this apple, gives it to some unqualified kid looking after some sheep named Paris, and says "Hey, you're invited to this party because you're a prince, go give it to the most beautiful woman there!"
Oh man, does this not bode well.
So, three fly ladies come forward after hearing about how this apple is to be given to the most beautiful woman there: Athena, Hera, and Aphrodite. Now, we modern humans would think that he would just judge beauty, and it would be done lickety split, but each Goddess pulls him to the side, and insinuates a reward if he chooses her.
Athena, "I will make you a consummate warrior, every man will fear you!"
Hera, "I will give you a station of importance, with a good marriage!"
Aphrodite, "I will give you the finest piece of pussy in the world."
http://www.happletea.com/2010/03/12/helen-of-sparta-is-super-fly/
If you like or love mythology, read this comic. It's fantastic, and thought provoking.
So, Paris chooses Aphrodite, and Helen gets whisked away from Sparta and Menelaus. The kings of Greece, having taken an oath to help get Helen back in the event that she gets taken from the husband of her choice, are called upon to go to war to bring her back. So, the question we ask first is "Why was an oath required in the first place?" Well, Helen was so hot that men were more than willing to kill other Hellenes for her. To bring about any semblance of peace, the men agreed that whomever she chose they would help should she be taken. Next comes the question "Why did they have oaths in the first place?" This will be the meat of the piece.
As far as we can tell, the Trojan War is supposed to have taken place around 1200 B.C.. We believe that the alphabet was introduced in 750 B.C., which allowed the Iliad to be written down, along with these strange little things written on papers called "laws." While the various polis that were developed after the collapse of the Mycenean dominance of Hellas, which was around 1100 B.C.. So, how did these societies operate without codified laws, written down and readable for anyone to check?
Promises and oaths.
People are bound together as a society because they are supposed to look out for each other's survival, and it's us against everybody else. Yet, there is still a distinction between those that would keep their word when given, and those that find promises and oaths only contingent upon the circumstances they are given or during the execution of that promise. What overriding, absolute way can we guarantee adherence to this cultural staple?
That whole "lightning bolt up the ass thing."
As such, this is the basis for oaths being given in the sight of the Gods, with sacrifices given to seal the deal. Whether it is the oath given to protect Helen, or the agreement between Hannibal and Philip V of Macedon in 215 B.C. after Hannibal's success at Cannae. To violate this oath would be the same as lying to one's Gods, the fast track for disaster, ruin, and death. Two things come from this. First, oaths require some form of a religious commitment or ceremony, solemn and truthful. Second, it's easy to see how oaths have fallen out given our much more secular world that we live in today. That is not to say that oaths are inextant in our world today. For example, certain youth groups have oath-taking ceremonies to prepare them for weighty virtues and demands of probity. Most famously are the Boy Scouts of America, and more obscurely the Order of DeMolay. Within our governmental structure, is it not the case that the highest positions of office require oaths to be given, specifically on our holy texts and in the sight of God and thousands of people to uphold our ideals and to do one's duty as well as possible?
I cannot back this up, but I think that oaths are as old as language and religion, the latter, so archaeology tells us, is believed to be the basis of culture, the former a way to communicate beliefs. While I think this is the cultural basis for oaths and oath-taking, I don't think that a religious component is necessary, it is at least sufficient. One need only take the spoken word to be excessively powerful to take an oath. Like Conan, who happens to hate laws and civilized people, yet keeps to his oaths as best he can, and swears by his God like it's nobody's business. Another interesting bit is that oaths seem to be rather wide-spread as an integral part in the fabric of ancient societies. Now, I would need to go into more detail than I have in the past concerning ancient China and thereabouts, but I know there is at least dedication to a words uttered formally to seal promises. Like the Shaolin badasses.
With this primer that will actually act as an informal background for the strongest philosophy paper I've written, I think one of the best questions that can be asked on this topic is this:
In the absence of laws, what keeps others from taking your crap like in Hobbes. The threat of violence, which is inefficient, but common Gods and practices that will keep people bound to their utterances?
Wa-ta! Ishamael
Before any mention of the modern relevance of oaths, it will be useful to talk about how our cultural ancestors set up their societies such that when an oath was given, you fucking keep it, or you'll get a lightning bolt right up your ass! There is always a reason for a God to have a certain aspect, otherwise a God would not have it. Everybody's favorite party God, Dionysos, is really a combination of different aspects that come from what he's associated with: wine. The Greeks, in their own way, learned that wine and alcohol have their own curative properties, from cleaning a wound with strong booze, or drinking to feel better. Heck, Greek theater, the realm of Dionysos is most well-known among the ancients because of the cathartic feelings experienced during performances, was believed to have special healing powers because of that release of pent-up emotions among the people. Or rather, dudes.
So, Gods have aspects because for a reason: because the Greeks found it important!
Enter Zeus, the pimp daddy of Olympus. Symbol of masculinity and virility, Zeus is the embodiment of the adolescent fantasy of being powerful, authoritative, and capable of taking different forms and ravishing every beautiful woman one takes a fancy to. He's also the Greek justification for the power of the old kings, like Agamemnon. So, the importance of oaths needs to be shown in this particular culture. Let's look at the Iliad, since I've already mentioned Agamemnon and Zeus. Alright, this all begins with the Goddess Eris not being invited to the marriage of Peleus and Thetis, and she gets pissed. So, she nabs this apple, gives it to some unqualified kid looking after some sheep named Paris, and says "Hey, you're invited to this party because you're a prince, go give it to the most beautiful woman there!"
Oh man, does this not bode well.
So, three fly ladies come forward after hearing about how this apple is to be given to the most beautiful woman there: Athena, Hera, and Aphrodite. Now, we modern humans would think that he would just judge beauty, and it would be done lickety split, but each Goddess pulls him to the side, and insinuates a reward if he chooses her.
Athena, "I will make you a consummate warrior, every man will fear you!"
Hera, "I will give you a station of importance, with a good marriage!"
Aphrodite, "I will give you the finest piece of pussy in the world."
http://www.happletea.com/2010/03/12/helen-of-sparta-is-super-fly/
If you like or love mythology, read this comic. It's fantastic, and thought provoking.
So, Paris chooses Aphrodite, and Helen gets whisked away from Sparta and Menelaus. The kings of Greece, having taken an oath to help get Helen back in the event that she gets taken from the husband of her choice, are called upon to go to war to bring her back. So, the question we ask first is "Why was an oath required in the first place?" Well, Helen was so hot that men were more than willing to kill other Hellenes for her. To bring about any semblance of peace, the men agreed that whomever she chose they would help should she be taken. Next comes the question "Why did they have oaths in the first place?" This will be the meat of the piece.
As far as we can tell, the Trojan War is supposed to have taken place around 1200 B.C.. We believe that the alphabet was introduced in 750 B.C., which allowed the Iliad to be written down, along with these strange little things written on papers called "laws." While the various polis that were developed after the collapse of the Mycenean dominance of Hellas, which was around 1100 B.C.. So, how did these societies operate without codified laws, written down and readable for anyone to check?
Promises and oaths.
People are bound together as a society because they are supposed to look out for each other's survival, and it's us against everybody else. Yet, there is still a distinction between those that would keep their word when given, and those that find promises and oaths only contingent upon the circumstances they are given or during the execution of that promise. What overriding, absolute way can we guarantee adherence to this cultural staple?
That whole "lightning bolt up the ass thing."
As such, this is the basis for oaths being given in the sight of the Gods, with sacrifices given to seal the deal. Whether it is the oath given to protect Helen, or the agreement between Hannibal and Philip V of Macedon in 215 B.C. after Hannibal's success at Cannae. To violate this oath would be the same as lying to one's Gods, the fast track for disaster, ruin, and death. Two things come from this. First, oaths require some form of a religious commitment or ceremony, solemn and truthful. Second, it's easy to see how oaths have fallen out given our much more secular world that we live in today. That is not to say that oaths are inextant in our world today. For example, certain youth groups have oath-taking ceremonies to prepare them for weighty virtues and demands of probity. Most famously are the Boy Scouts of America, and more obscurely the Order of DeMolay. Within our governmental structure, is it not the case that the highest positions of office require oaths to be given, specifically on our holy texts and in the sight of God and thousands of people to uphold our ideals and to do one's duty as well as possible?
I cannot back this up, but I think that oaths are as old as language and religion, the latter, so archaeology tells us, is believed to be the basis of culture, the former a way to communicate beliefs. While I think this is the cultural basis for oaths and oath-taking, I don't think that a religious component is necessary, it is at least sufficient. One need only take the spoken word to be excessively powerful to take an oath. Like Conan, who happens to hate laws and civilized people, yet keeps to his oaths as best he can, and swears by his God like it's nobody's business. Another interesting bit is that oaths seem to be rather wide-spread as an integral part in the fabric of ancient societies. Now, I would need to go into more detail than I have in the past concerning ancient China and thereabouts, but I know there is at least dedication to a words uttered formally to seal promises. Like the Shaolin badasses.
With this primer that will actually act as an informal background for the strongest philosophy paper I've written, I think one of the best questions that can be asked on this topic is this:
In the absence of laws, what keeps others from taking your crap like in Hobbes. The threat of violence, which is inefficient, but common Gods and practices that will keep people bound to their utterances?
Wa-ta! Ishamael
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)