ghostsanddreams (![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} ghostsanddreams) wrote,@ 2006-10-24 03:20:00 |
|
The abolition of man is within the reach of science.
(But are we so far gone that we'll try it?)
I think I'm past being amazed at the fact that every time I think I've thought something out on my own it turns out CS Lewis already wrote about it (and we almost always agree.) Not that I ever thought I came up with totally original ideas or anything, just seems odd that he pretty much nails everything I'm thinking... 50 years before the fact.
Anyhow the Abolition of Man had many interesting things to speak of so I'll stick to the one I was just talking about in my old journal a few weeks ago. Remember our good friend cultural relativism, and my insistance that every human being should have some inate ability to determine what is right and wrong regardless of their culture? Turns out CS Lewis took it one step further. He doesn't believe any *new* values have been created since well, probably the dawn of man.
It's not really that unbelievable of a concept. Even if you take the most extreme things that pass for "values" in certain cultures they usually have their core in some universal value. Hitler's genocide is just a warped concept of "what is best for the human race" which is not a new idea. Female genital mutilation is just a warped concept of sexual purity. I think we would be hard-pressed to find any values which are actually new... even wacky cults with all kinds of odd rituals are just a warped concept of "obedience to god" (or gods/goddesses/the life force) and that idea has been around forever.
Furthermore, he thinks it is impossible to create new values because (and this is important, and why I do not like cultural relativism) he doesn't believe values are something of us, but something that HAVE VALUE IN AND OF THEMSELVES. For instance, when we as a society say rape is evil it is not that rape was ok until our society deemed it evil... it is that rape was evil and that demanded our recognition of the fact. When it becomes a cultural value of ours it is not because our culture creates the value but because our culture RECOGNIZES the truth in the value, a truth that would be there regardless of what any individual or society thought. And in this respect, if a certain culture out there does not recognize rape as evil, it is not something we can accept simply because they are a different culture... because from this view they are ignoring a universal truth.
The interesting thing is he doesn't approach any of this from a religious standpoint at all. In fact, he calls this idea of universal values "the Tao" and says that many religions and even secular philosophers have recognized these core values of mankind. And I feel like I should apologize for always using extreme examples, but I think extreme examples can resonate with anyone. I think no matter how much some people approach values as relative from an intellectual standpoint, when faced with the reality of something like rape they HAVE to accept that it is straight up wrong. And once you accept that one value can be definitively wrong, what basis is there for claiming that most of the others are relative?
Of course, this isn't to say that *I* know for a fact what is right and wrong universally to mankind. I'm not sure anyone does. I tend to think universal values mostly fall under "common sense" but of course everyone has a bit of a different notion of what common sense is. But I do think they exist, and I think the more we approach debates on values with the idea that there IS truth in right and wrong, then the more fruitful those debates will be. I can acknowledge that right and wrong exist out there while at the same time realizing that *my* views on them can be flawed. I'm certainly not perfectly logical nor perfectly intelligent and far from perfectly moral... but isn't it worth striving towards?
After all, there really is no debate in values with someone who can't accept universal truth. Once everything is relative a debate no longer needs to take place. Humans can act however they want and justify it to themselves and no one else. We tend to look on horror at a condemned serial killer who has no remorse... but if they truly have no remorse then they are acting in a perfectly rational manner within their own value system (or lack of) so WHY should we expect them to comform to *our* values? And at this point people will bring up things like "the good of society" and such but that is just another name for values... why should a serial killer even care about the good of society if there is no truth in the fact that acting in a manner that is best for society is a good action?
When it comes down to it a perfectly relative view of ethics and morals is no view at all. It says nothing about what is right or wrong, and even denies that these concepts exist. And without right and wrong what is left to guide our actions? Feelings, instincts... arbitrary things. This is what CS Lewis calls the abolition of man, and he is very pessimistic about a future where this is the way most people think and act.
I myself get pessimistic at times, but I keep up some hope for the future of mankind. In fact, I don't think there are many people out there who TRULY believe in the relativity of right and wrong. I think there are people who *think* they believe this, but most people still go out and live their lives with some kind of ethical and moral standards. They might sit online and give all sorts of supposedly intellectual reasons for why one value system is no better than the next... but then they walk down the street and see a parent beating a child and suddenly they get that uncomfortable feeling in the pit of their stomach, the one that lets you KNOW you just witnessed something horrible whether you want to acknowledge it intellectually or not. I don't think feelings should ever replace intelligent thought, but sometimes certain feelings help to point us in the right direction when our minds aren't quite working correctly.
Yeah I keep up some hope. Just not perhaps as much as I should.
(But are we so far gone that we'll try it?)
I think I'm past being amazed at the fact that every time I think I've thought something out on my own it turns out CS Lewis already wrote about it (and we almost always agree.) Not that I ever thought I came up with totally original ideas or anything, just seems odd that he pretty much nails everything I'm thinking... 50 years before the fact.
Anyhow the Abolition of Man had many interesting things to speak of so I'll stick to the one I was just talking about in my old journal a few weeks ago. Remember our good friend cultural relativism, and my insistance that every human being should have some inate ability to determine what is right and wrong regardless of their culture? Turns out CS Lewis took it one step further. He doesn't believe any *new* values have been created since well, probably the dawn of man.
It's not really that unbelievable of a concept. Even if you take the most extreme things that pass for "values" in certain cultures they usually have their core in some universal value. Hitler's genocide is just a warped concept of "what is best for the human race" which is not a new idea. Female genital mutilation is just a warped concept of sexual purity. I think we would be hard-pressed to find any values which are actually new... even wacky cults with all kinds of odd rituals are just a warped concept of "obedience to god" (or gods/goddesses/the life force) and that idea has been around forever.
Furthermore, he thinks it is impossible to create new values because (and this is important, and why I do not like cultural relativism) he doesn't believe values are something of us, but something that HAVE VALUE IN AND OF THEMSELVES. For instance, when we as a society say rape is evil it is not that rape was ok until our society deemed it evil... it is that rape was evil and that demanded our recognition of the fact. When it becomes a cultural value of ours it is not because our culture creates the value but because our culture RECOGNIZES the truth in the value, a truth that would be there regardless of what any individual or society thought. And in this respect, if a certain culture out there does not recognize rape as evil, it is not something we can accept simply because they are a different culture... because from this view they are ignoring a universal truth.
The interesting thing is he doesn't approach any of this from a religious standpoint at all. In fact, he calls this idea of universal values "the Tao" and says that many religions and even secular philosophers have recognized these core values of mankind. And I feel like I should apologize for always using extreme examples, but I think extreme examples can resonate with anyone. I think no matter how much some people approach values as relative from an intellectual standpoint, when faced with the reality of something like rape they HAVE to accept that it is straight up wrong. And once you accept that one value can be definitively wrong, what basis is there for claiming that most of the others are relative?
Of course, this isn't to say that *I* know for a fact what is right and wrong universally to mankind. I'm not sure anyone does. I tend to think universal values mostly fall under "common sense" but of course everyone has a bit of a different notion of what common sense is. But I do think they exist, and I think the more we approach debates on values with the idea that there IS truth in right and wrong, then the more fruitful those debates will be. I can acknowledge that right and wrong exist out there while at the same time realizing that *my* views on them can be flawed. I'm certainly not perfectly logical nor perfectly intelligent and far from perfectly moral... but isn't it worth striving towards?
After all, there really is no debate in values with someone who can't accept universal truth. Once everything is relative a debate no longer needs to take place. Humans can act however they want and justify it to themselves and no one else. We tend to look on horror at a condemned serial killer who has no remorse... but if they truly have no remorse then they are acting in a perfectly rational manner within their own value system (or lack of) so WHY should we expect them to comform to *our* values? And at this point people will bring up things like "the good of society" and such but that is just another name for values... why should a serial killer even care about the good of society if there is no truth in the fact that acting in a manner that is best for society is a good action?
When it comes down to it a perfectly relative view of ethics and morals is no view at all. It says nothing about what is right or wrong, and even denies that these concepts exist. And without right and wrong what is left to guide our actions? Feelings, instincts... arbitrary things. This is what CS Lewis calls the abolition of man, and he is very pessimistic about a future where this is the way most people think and act.
I myself get pessimistic at times, but I keep up some hope for the future of mankind. In fact, I don't think there are many people out there who TRULY believe in the relativity of right and wrong. I think there are people who *think* they believe this, but most people still go out and live their lives with some kind of ethical and moral standards. They might sit online and give all sorts of supposedly intellectual reasons for why one value system is no better than the next... but then they walk down the street and see a parent beating a child and suddenly they get that uncomfortable feeling in the pit of their stomach, the one that lets you KNOW you just witnessed something horrible whether you want to acknowledge it intellectually or not. I don't think feelings should ever replace intelligent thought, but sometimes certain feelings help to point us in the right direction when our minds aren't quite working correctly.
Yeah I keep up some hope. Just not perhaps as much as I should.
