- 939
- Posts
- 10
- Years
- Kansas City
- Seen May 19, 2023
You're implying something here that's not entirely clear to me, so I'm going to guess as to what you mean. It may do well for you to clarify what you mean.
You can stop right there, because nothing is being implied in my statement that "Evil is a construct." You can take it at face value, because it was not my intention to make any judgements on the value or usefulness of the construct. I was simply pointing out the fact that evil is abstract rather than concrete, conceptual as opposed to actual.
Either everyone up to the time of my posting had taken the abstract nature of evil for granted or had mistaken an idea for something concrete and actual. I feel that understanding this distinction is a necessary prerequisite to making any critical evaluations of the idea of evil. When we imagine that evil exists in nature, then it follows that there is some definition, some distinction between good and evil that is the right and correct view.
But when we see that evil is an artificially created construct, it follows that the boundary between good and evil is also abstracted. At that point, we no longer need to argue about whose definition is correct, but simply present the reasons why we hold our particular definitions. This allows us in turn to see that all definitions stem from partial truths; all viewpoints have merit, even as some are more inclusive or comprehensive (more "adequate") than others.
I assume you mean the rational ("scientific") approach to ethics, specifically. Science doesn't quite seem like the appropriate term to describe it, since we're not examining data or testing hypothesis, we're merely constructing theories based on logical reasoning.
...
If, rather, you meant reason instead of science, then you are denying logic as a source of truth. This is impossible, as logic is, by definition, a means of using existing truths to find other truths. You would be saying that truth is not the source of truth, which is a contradiction.
In my outburst of emotion, I used the term "science" incorrectly. You can replace all instances of that word with "reason" or "rationality."
However, I absolutely did not state that the rational approach to ethics has no value in determining truth, in fact I said the exact opposite. What I said, specifically, was that the fact that the rational approach has merit does not mean that other approaches do not also have merit.
However, we can discuss the relative "superiority" of pre-rational, rational, and post-rational approaches in general, which should make clear the impact of the fact that evolution has created deeper truths than mere rationality. To begin, let's examine a few excerpts from the rest of your post.
That is correct. That alone does not "trump" other answers, in that it does not necessarily make those other answers false. However, in argument, the party making an affirmative claim bears the burden of proof. If those bearing other answers wish to convince anyone, they must be able to reason as to why their answers are right.
...
Ethical philosophy is, in essence, an attempt to rationally construct what is a subconscious understanding in most of us.
...
A rational basis would also have that effect [of "allowing human beings to find common ground regardless of kinship or lineage"], and I don't see many people going off on crusades to evangelize Kant. Plus, it has the added bonus of being a conclusion you can come to logically. If someone asks you why, you can explain why. With religion as the basis for ethics, your only reason for your belief is because that's what's written there. You tend to run into a lot of problems when different gods (or even the same one) say conflicting things; the only argument you can really use is "my deity's right and yours is wrong," followed by either grudging tolerance or a lot of gunfire.
...
However, when it comes to a debate about ethics, you need to be able to substantiate your beliefs. To believe is not enough in a debate, where you are trying to convince other people why you are right. "Because God said so" is not a sufficiently convincing reason to anyone who doesn't believe in your religion. "Because happiness is the only universally desirable factor" or "because intent is the extent of what man can control" are much more convincing arguments for why your theory is better.
What is really crucial to understand is that rational values are not held by those at pre-rational or post-rational stages. When you say things like "you must be able to logically show how you reached your answer", this is true only when you are speaking in a rational context, to other people who primarily determine truth through rationality.
On YouTube, you can find a number of fascinating videos showing research on the stages of human development. This one is fairly succinct.
What such research demonstrates is that different worldviews produce different worldspaces.
Concrete operational events do not exist in preoperational worldspaces; the younger children see the researcher magically produce a larger amount of juice, while the older children see the researcher pour the same amount of juice from one cup to another. The conservation of mass exists only when concrete operations exist.
You there, sitting in front of your computer screen, may say "But the amount of juice is the same, regardless of whether the kid knows it." But you are capable of concrete operations. And that child would never, ever see the amount of juice as unchanging, regardless of how many logical arguments you present. Her reality is different from yours.
And formal operational events do not exist in concrete operational worldspaces. The last kid was able to construct a hypothetical world in which feathers break glasses, or in other words, she is able to envision all possible worlds. This infinitude of possibility does not exist for the younger child! He is only able to perceive the world he actually experiences.
The second important thing to note is that these stages unfold over time, in a specific order. This can been seen in individuals over the course of their lifetimes and in humanity over the course of history. People first see the world as full of magical forces who must be bargained with, then they see the world in terms of authoritarian absolutes, then comes rationality and representation paradigm, followed next by pluralistic perspectivism, followed by the newly-emerging integral stage.
When people are emerging from the magic stage, it is simply too great a leap in understanding to go straight to rationality. It would be like expecting someone to go straight from arithmetic to geometry, without having learned algebra. Rational thinking is built upon mythic-level thinking, in the same way that geometry is built upon algebra.
So while it is true that different clans are united when the world is viewed rationally, the mythic stage must be passed through to reach rationality in the first place. This is why it is absolutely critical to make room for those who are at this stage. Mythology is not only a necessary first step to rationality, it performs a function that logic and reasoning cannot.
Now let's look at what makes some worldviews - and the ethical norms of those worldviews - more comprehensive than others. Specifically, I want to illustrate why reason is not the final truth, and what I mean when I say that evolution has moved on.
To begin, logic and reasoning are part of a post-rational understanding, because the later stages of growth both transcend and include the earlier ones. To use the earlier analogy, this is like saying that geometry goes beyond the concepts of algebra by introducing emergent truths, and also includes the truths of algebra within its framework. While trans-rational thought takes logic and reasoning into account, logic ceases to become the most important factor in determining truth as we move beyond the rational stage.
The rational approach has a "representational paradigm." At this stage of cognition, the world is understood to be an objective reality, which one can simply sit back and map, or represent, in an empirical fashion. From this worldview came the Enlightenment and industrial revolution. It is not the case that the logical worldview is meaningless, it is simply that it is very limited and narrow compared to the post-rational modes of understanding, the first of which is referred to as perspectival or pluralistic, the second of which is called integrative, unified, or integral. Ken Wilber describes the pluralistic worldview thus:
"There are many ways to summarize the limitations of the representation paradigm, the idea that knowledge basically consists of making maps of the world. But the simplest way to state the problem with maps is: they leave out the mapmaker. What was being utterly ignored was the fact that the mapmaker might itself bring something to the picture!...
Beginning with Kant, and running through Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Dilthey, Heidegger, Foucalt, Derrida - all of the great "postmodern" theorists - in all of them we find a powerful attack on the mapping paradigm, because it fails to take into account the self that is making the maps in the first place.
The self did not just parachute to earth. It has its own characteristics, its own structures, its own development, its own history - and all of those will influence and govern what it will see, and what it can see, in that supposedly "single" world just lying around. The parachutist is up to its neck in contexts and backgrounds that determine just what it can see in the first place!"
This accounting for perspectives and context is the emergent truth of the pluralist worldview, just as scientific inquiry was the emergent truth of the rational worldview. The emergent truth of the integral worldview is that every previous stage is true but partial.
Magic, mythic, reason, and pluralist all share one thing in common: they all believe that their view is the only right and correct view of the world. Even pluralistic thinking, which says that no view is any better or any worse than another, holds it to be true that this non-ranking view is the right view. But the integral lens sees that each other lens shows a unique and valuable truth, and that every worldview has shortcomings and a unique set of problems that it brings forth.
I hope at this point that I've clearly shown why each and every worldview needs to be honored and included. With that foundation in place, we can look at what makes the later worldviews "better" than the previous ones.
We can safely assume that even the integral worldview is not seeing "all" of reality, since evolution continues to produce new worldspaces. But each lens gets a fuller picture of the universe, and allows human beings to expand their circle of care. As we move from mythic ethics, to rational ethics, to pluralist ethics, to integral ethics, we are able to ensure greater good for a greater number of people.