During my freshman year of college I took an introductory course to ethics. We learned Aristotle’s, Kant’s, and Mill’s theories of ethics and how they believed one should arrive at a moral decision when needing to make some sort of choice. While the three theories were all pretty different from each other, the three men all had one thing in common: They believed that there was some sort of comprehensive, reliable system one could use to always make ethical choices in life.
None of their systems are perfect, however. Eventually one will come across a circumstance that the theories can’t satisfactorily address. It became clear to me that, with the effectively infinite scenarios that could require one to try to reach a moral decision, there just cannot be one simple (or even complicated) ethics equation one can plug the situational variables into and reliably come up with a morally sound answer.
So my view on morality is that it is not absolute and there is no special equation we can rely on to tell us what is right. Morality to me is not a clear-cut thing — there’s probably a right answer to the majority of our moral choices, but we have to examine each choice individually, our judgement based upon some basic moral principles we find just, utilizing the principles we believe are most relevant to the decision at hand. The best moral answers to decisions can be arrived at in different ways (i.e., ambiguously).
Not having a clear, reliable formula for morality is fine for some, but appalling to others. Many (if not most) atheists, for example, don’t mind at all not having a specific moral equation and are comfortable with examining choices on an individual basis and trusting that others can do the same and still be moral. Very religious people on the other hand much prefer to see people use the often strict moral guidelines of their respective holy books and teachings, effectively appealing to authority and not making a moral decision at all.
The nonreligious in this case are more comfortable with moral uncertainty. For different reasons, including a distrust of archaic scriptures and self- or institution-proclaimed moral authorities, these people are generally more laid back in this respect and trusting of others’ ability to make autonomous moral decisions. The very religious, however, are not so trusting; one often hears them warning that without belief in God and his moral teachings society would become completely morally bankrupt and partake in all sorts of unchecked violence and debauchery. Obviously, with the very religious, there is a fear of a moral gray area that their nonreligious counterparts are comfortable dealing with — a gray area where they often think almost anything goes.
It’s not just morality, though, where we see this divide between the very religious and the nonreligious; we see it in science too. There are many phenomena that science has yet to fully explain, from the the mystery of dark matter to exactly how life began on Earth, that devout believers must have answers to. The very religious, probably more often than not, attribute them to the hand of God — there’s currently no perfectly concrete theory to describe it so it must be God.1 Boom — a solid answer and no more uncertainty to worry about. This is common even when science is quickly honing in on specific answers that demonstrably do not need a god behind them. Atheists on the other hand tend to be just fine not knowing the exact answers to these questions as well as the notion that morality is a human construct (likely with some basic memes built in by evolution) in a universe where morality is not inherent. The incomprehensibility of, say, much of the nature of quantum mechanics, which can leave us with as many new questions as answers, is not worrisome for atheists in the way it is for the religious.
How comfortable one is with uncertainty also helps determine whether one is politically/philosophically/attitudinally conservative or liberal. The definition of a conservative is one who favors the status quo; in other words, a person who wants to stick to policies whose effects and dynamics are already known. While liberals and progressives generally know what kind of changes they want to enact and how they think they will pan out, they obviously proceed with at least some degree of uncertainty if the policy changes are different from anything tried before. A discomfort with the uncertainty of how society will be is an important factor in why conservative folks do not feel comfortable changing the status quo.2
One specific political example worth mentioning could be drug legalization. Conservatives generally do not favor legalizing any drugs (the status quo) and prefer to continue making their possession, transportation, and transactions a punishable offense.3 Whether or not it’s the optimal policy for deterring drug use, it is what conservatives are most comfortable with. Many liberals, however, want to see many, if not all, drugs decriminalized and their victims treated rather than punished. While there is no clear idea of what the effects of such a huge change will be and whether or not it will deter drug use,4 liberals are still comfortable with this uncertainty if their goals are legalization and treatment rather than punishment.
While, as a whole, conservatives and the very religious (two groups that have some definite overlap) tend to be more uncomfortable with ambiguity, there is one particular ambiguity that the latter at least do not at all seem to mind: the way God supposedly works. Specifically, I’m talking about when, in theological discussion, people declare, “God works in mysterious ways.” While there is a strong desire to stamp an answer on mysterious phenomena, once God is credited as the answer, we need not worry further — this new uncertainty that arises suddenly becomes acceptable.
It’s understandable why people seek to banish ambiguity from their lives; it’s comforting knowing what exactly we should do and how exactly the world works. People have always striven to explain the world and the phenomena in it with simple, precise formulas and systems, from the Pythagorean theorem to mass-energy equivalence. It makes our lives simpler. Perhaps it is a matter of brain chemistry that causes some of us to be comfortable with these kinds of uncertainties and some of us not to be. Another possibility I believe to be pervasive throughout society is indoctrination, primarily religious and philosophical; people are all too often brought up being told that not knowing is inherently wrong if those who are telling them claim to have answers. Perhaps, in this more modern, secular, and progressive world that has evolved, many of us consider not necessarily knowing something nor strictly committing to a system perfectly fine. We trust ourselves to do the right thing and know there will be no punishment for admitting, “I don’t know."
1 Of course, a fear of uncertainty or ambiguity is not the only reason most of the very religious decry an ongoing pursuit for answering questions that holy texts already claim to answer. Being told and told and told since childhood that God is responsible for everything often motivates the religious to reject the idea that we don’t yet have certain answers.
2 Of course, a fear of uncertainty or ambiguity is not the only reason most conservatives decry liberalism. Disdain for items of the liberal/progressive agenda such as more government regulation on business and same-sex marriage often motivates conservatives to want to maintain the status quo, if not revert back to older policies.
3 One could even go so far as to say that conservatives originally wanted to criminalize drugs because of their fear of the uncertainty of what their effects could have on society when they were still relatively new.
4 It’s not entirely true that there’s no clear idea of what the effects of drug decriminalization and treatment would be; Portugal initiated these things ten years ago and drug abuse there has been cut in half.
This article was originally published at Medium.com with the subtitle "Ruminating on which kinds of people are comfortable with not knowing and which aren’t."
None of their systems are perfect, however. Eventually one will come across a circumstance that the theories can’t satisfactorily address. It became clear to me that, with the effectively infinite scenarios that could require one to try to reach a moral decision, there just cannot be one simple (or even complicated) ethics equation one can plug the situational variables into and reliably come up with a morally sound answer.
So my view on morality is that it is not absolute and there is no special equation we can rely on to tell us what is right. Morality to me is not a clear-cut thing — there’s probably a right answer to the majority of our moral choices, but we have to examine each choice individually, our judgement based upon some basic moral principles we find just, utilizing the principles we believe are most relevant to the decision at hand. The best moral answers to decisions can be arrived at in different ways (i.e., ambiguously).
Not having a clear, reliable formula for morality is fine for some, but appalling to others. Many (if not most) atheists, for example, don’t mind at all not having a specific moral equation and are comfortable with examining choices on an individual basis and trusting that others can do the same and still be moral. Very religious people on the other hand much prefer to see people use the often strict moral guidelines of their respective holy books and teachings, effectively appealing to authority and not making a moral decision at all.
The nonreligious in this case are more comfortable with moral uncertainty. For different reasons, including a distrust of archaic scriptures and self- or institution-proclaimed moral authorities, these people are generally more laid back in this respect and trusting of others’ ability to make autonomous moral decisions. The very religious, however, are not so trusting; one often hears them warning that without belief in God and his moral teachings society would become completely morally bankrupt and partake in all sorts of unchecked violence and debauchery. Obviously, with the very religious, there is a fear of a moral gray area that their nonreligious counterparts are comfortable dealing with — a gray area where they often think almost anything goes.
It’s not just morality, though, where we see this divide between the very religious and the nonreligious; we see it in science too. There are many phenomena that science has yet to fully explain, from the the mystery of dark matter to exactly how life began on Earth, that devout believers must have answers to. The very religious, probably more often than not, attribute them to the hand of God — there’s currently no perfectly concrete theory to describe it so it must be God.1 Boom — a solid answer and no more uncertainty to worry about. This is common even when science is quickly honing in on specific answers that demonstrably do not need a god behind them. Atheists on the other hand tend to be just fine not knowing the exact answers to these questions as well as the notion that morality is a human construct (likely with some basic memes built in by evolution) in a universe where morality is not inherent. The incomprehensibility of, say, much of the nature of quantum mechanics, which can leave us with as many new questions as answers, is not worrisome for atheists in the way it is for the religious.
How comfortable one is with uncertainty also helps determine whether one is politically/philosophically/attitudinally conservative or liberal. The definition of a conservative is one who favors the status quo; in other words, a person who wants to stick to policies whose effects and dynamics are already known. While liberals and progressives generally know what kind of changes they want to enact and how they think they will pan out, they obviously proceed with at least some degree of uncertainty if the policy changes are different from anything tried before. A discomfort with the uncertainty of how society will be is an important factor in why conservative folks do not feel comfortable changing the status quo.2
One specific political example worth mentioning could be drug legalization. Conservatives generally do not favor legalizing any drugs (the status quo) and prefer to continue making their possession, transportation, and transactions a punishable offense.3 Whether or not it’s the optimal policy for deterring drug use, it is what conservatives are most comfortable with. Many liberals, however, want to see many, if not all, drugs decriminalized and their victims treated rather than punished. While there is no clear idea of what the effects of such a huge change will be and whether or not it will deter drug use,4 liberals are still comfortable with this uncertainty if their goals are legalization and treatment rather than punishment.
While, as a whole, conservatives and the very religious (two groups that have some definite overlap) tend to be more uncomfortable with ambiguity, there is one particular ambiguity that the latter at least do not at all seem to mind: the way God supposedly works. Specifically, I’m talking about when, in theological discussion, people declare, “God works in mysterious ways.” While there is a strong desire to stamp an answer on mysterious phenomena, once God is credited as the answer, we need not worry further — this new uncertainty that arises suddenly becomes acceptable.
It’s understandable why people seek to banish ambiguity from their lives; it’s comforting knowing what exactly we should do and how exactly the world works. People have always striven to explain the world and the phenomena in it with simple, precise formulas and systems, from the Pythagorean theorem to mass-energy equivalence. It makes our lives simpler. Perhaps it is a matter of brain chemistry that causes some of us to be comfortable with these kinds of uncertainties and some of us not to be. Another possibility I believe to be pervasive throughout society is indoctrination, primarily religious and philosophical; people are all too often brought up being told that not knowing is inherently wrong if those who are telling them claim to have answers. Perhaps, in this more modern, secular, and progressive world that has evolved, many of us consider not necessarily knowing something nor strictly committing to a system perfectly fine. We trust ourselves to do the right thing and know there will be no punishment for admitting, “I don’t know."
1 Of course, a fear of uncertainty or ambiguity is not the only reason most of the very religious decry an ongoing pursuit for answering questions that holy texts already claim to answer. Being told and told and told since childhood that God is responsible for everything often motivates the religious to reject the idea that we don’t yet have certain answers.
2 Of course, a fear of uncertainty or ambiguity is not the only reason most conservatives decry liberalism. Disdain for items of the liberal/progressive agenda such as more government regulation on business and same-sex marriage often motivates conservatives to want to maintain the status quo, if not revert back to older policies.
3 One could even go so far as to say that conservatives originally wanted to criminalize drugs because of their fear of the uncertainty of what their effects could have on society when they were still relatively new.
4 It’s not entirely true that there’s no clear idea of what the effects of drug decriminalization and treatment would be; Portugal initiated these things ten years ago and drug abuse there has been cut in half.
No comments:
Post a Comment