Why
philosophy is crucial to society and politics
One of the
things that really stood out to me in the 2016 Presidential Campaign was when
Marco Rubio said we need more welders, and less philosophers. I can see what he
was saying to a point, that in general welders have a specific job while a
philosopher will probably not be just a philosopher, they’ll need to actually
apply their knowledge and skills to being a consultant, or a teacher, or any
number of other careers. However, everyone has the capacity to be a
philosopher, and to a degree are. Philosophy is often derided as being
pie-in-the-sky talk of hypothetical matters, and it can be, but it’s also
something that comes into play in our daily lives. In our society and politics
today, I think we desperately need more of it.
How do we
determine how we vote?
How do we
rationalize the actions of our favored candidates and party against those we do
not favor?
What offends
us and what do we think is the proper response depending on who offended us and
why we were offended?
I am not an
expert on philosophy. I’ve never taken a class on philosophy, my knowledge of
it is from things I’ve picked up over time as well as the Crash Course Philosophy
videos, which I’ll link the first video for.
It’s okay
though. We don’t have to get a PhD in Philosophy to be able to be rational,
consistent, and ethical with our political discourse. In this post, I’ll be
covering six brief lessons in philosophy that I think need to be used more in
our current debates, followed by an example of what can happen when we don’t
use a healthy amount of philosophy in our discourse.
Truth vs. Validity
It’s hard to
distinguish truth from validity, and it often screws up our debates in society
and politics. Something that it “true” is a fact, it is something that is empirically correct. Validity on the other hand is
something that is logical, that follows a train of thought that
make sense.
An example of something that is true, but not valid would
be the following:
God
does not like LGBT people, it causes God to punish people, therefore
Hurricane Harvey and Irma devastated the United States and the Carribean.
The underlined part is a fact, two
hurricanes did indeed cause a lot of damage, but there is no validity, no
rational connection that shows that they were a punishment from God. There is
no way to really disprove whether the claims are true or not, but we can
challenge the logic behind it.
An example of something that is valid, but not true on
the other hand:
Vaccinations
can cause autism, your neighbors vaccinated their child, therefore the child
might become autistic because of the vaccinations.
The argument is logical
from start to finish, that indeed if vaccinations can cause autism, and if a
child is vaccinated, then the child will be at more risk. However it is not
true, there is no evidence to support this claim, except for a study that was
proven false.
In both cases, the arguments leading up to the conclusion
are the issue, but for different reasons. In the first case, it follows no real
rhyme or reason and is paired with a very real natural disaster to try to
appear legitimate, which it is not. In the latter case, it makes sense step by
step but is based on bad information. These aren’t made up hypotheticals, these
are arguments and beliefs some people have, but in order to counter it it’s
important to be able to point out what specifically is wrong with it, knowing
it is wrong in and of itself is not enough.
Human
vs. Person
I really like philosophy’s distinction between a “human”
and a “person”. A human is a biological species that the greatest saints, most depraved monsters, and all
of us in between belong to. A person on the other hand is someone worth moral consideration, that
they are worthy of having rights, privileges, respect, and so on.
Human and person as words are used interchangeably, and sadly
the concepts are mixed up as well. There are too many examples where we don’t
even accept another group as the same species, while on the flip side we often
treat moral consideration by society as inherent to our biological makeup. This
is a dangerous confusion for a society to have when the boundaries of what is
our choice as a society and how we are physically born can’t
be distinguished.
For most of us it’s okay to give more personhood to some
than others. Most of us are all right with military veterans, and those who put
themselves in harm’s way like Police and Firemen getting some extra respect and
benefits. We allot them more personhood for their sacrifice, for the dangers
they put themselves in. On the flip side, we take away some degree of
personhood from criminals, we dole out punishments that often restrict what
they can do and where they can go. However, most of us will agree that
regardless of their great deeds, veterans and others are not entitled to do
whatever they want, whenever they want. There are still rules that they share
with the rest of us. Likewise, despite their crimes, criminals are still entitled
to at least a minimum of rights and protections.
However, in today’s society we are not just debating the
merits of the brave, the consequences of crime. Who has the right to protest, in
what manner may the protest, what issues may the protest? Who deserves our empathy?
Who deserves our condemnation? Who should be punished?
These are questions we’ll continue to contend with, question of how we define
“people” and sadly much of it still revolves around gender, race, religion, and
other demographics meant to be protected by our laws.
Identity
What makes me, me, and what makes you, you? Although at
first it might seem like one of those esoteric questions without a right
answer, it plays out in our lives and in society every day.
“I am an American because I do X, and therefore I’m entitled to Y” is
a very prevalent sentiment in our country. When we say this we’re defining what
it means to be an American, as well as what we should have because of it. Is
“X” hard work, service, a mean hamburger on the grill? Is “Y” the right to free
speech, representation by our officials, a middle income wage? From religion,
to social class, to profession, to even what kind of hobby or sport we do can
be something we feel is a vital part of who we are, and we define them with “X’s”
and “Y’s”.
On a societal level we not only create a self-identity,
but an identity for others. If what it means to be an America is to stand up
for the Pledge of Allegiance, then Collin Kaepernick is not an American by that
definition. If what it means to be an American is to practice your right to
free speech, and to have a legal citizenship, then Collin Kaepernick is an
American by definition. What we end up with is those who identify him as an “other”, something who is not us, and those who identify who as “same”, as someone who is one of us.
We unfortunately mistake identity for Truth though, as
undisputed fact. Identity is a concept, one that we do not and will not agree upon
and that is all right. What is the problem is when we fail to accept that other identities, other ways to define the world exist beyond our own. We use the same words
whether citizen, patriot, American, and more to describe different worldviews
that do not match.
Harmful
words
Words can and do actually hurt. It
doesn’t feel good to be rejected, or scolded, or threatened even if nothing
physically happens. The word “snowflakes” has become all too common by people
of many different political opinions to describe those who are offended by
things they themselves are not offended by. Going back once more to the Ten
Strategies I posted before, it’s generally not productive to
delegitimize a person’s feelings.
However, it is important to distinguish how and why we’re
offended. There is a difference between “dirty words” that upset our sensibilities and “hate speech” that directly attacks a person for what they are, and of
course a more personal attack.
We can be offended by bad language, violence, or
pornography in a game, movie, or tv show. We can be offended by irreverent
behavior that we find gross or unsettling.
This all falls into the dirty category, things upset our sense of properness. A
good example is our rating system, kids can’t go see an R-rated movie unless
accompanied by a parent or guardian.
Hate speech is meant to harm what a person is whether
their gender, race, religion, nationality, sexuality, or some other part of
what a person is. As opposed to offending our sense of properness, it is an
attack on a person themselves, and by extension everyone
else who belongs to the group that the victim was targeted for being.
And a personal attack is just that, it is something that
is targeted towards a single person that can be inconsequential, could be incredibly
serious and potentially dangerous, or somewhere in between. Unlike hate speech
though, it is not an attack against an entire subsect of people.
I really hope the term “snowflake” goes away, though
realistically if it does it’ll probably be because another catchy word has
taken its place. It’s okay for us to be offended, we
just have to be able to distinguish why we’re offended and respond accordingly.
If as a society we find something that upsets our sensibilities, we censor it
to whatever extent we choose. If as a society we run into hate speech, we
should protect the group of people being attacked,
understanding that more than just those directly involved are at risk. If it is
a personal attack, then we handle it on an individual basis as best we can.
However, we get them mixed up and merely censor what is
an attack against a group of people, we mistake a personal attack for a hate
speech, we mistake hate speech for a personal attack. When we don’t understand
what kind of offense has been given, as a society we can’t respond effectively.
Epistemic
responsibility
I love, love, love the concept of “epistemic
responsibility”, that we have responsibility for our beliefs. It
is the understanding that our beliefs can have consequences
both positives and negatives. We often feel that beliefs are private and
personal. However, do we not share our beliefs? spread our
beliefs? act upon our beliefs? If a person is a sexist,
do they really go through life treating both men and women fairly and only
think their sexist thoughts?
Different beliefs hold different weight.
Our opinion about a beverage doesn’t hold the same weight as our belief in the
treatment of other people. We don’t necessarily need to hold up every minor or
trivial belief we have under a microscope. However, for those beliefs that are
bigger, that do hold a very real impact for not only yourself, but those around
you, consider what should matter:
-Should there be good intent?
-Should there be evidence?
-Should there be effort?
-Should there be self-reflection and criticism?
I would argue that whatever standards people use, there
should be some standards. We should aspire to hold ourselves to a higher standard for those important beliefs, to accept their impact on
our society, and to not take our beliefs for granted when truly we’re
responsible for them.
It’s
not easy
I think one of the stereotypical visualizations we have
of a philosopher is of very well educated people debating for hours on end
highly complicated and subjective things like life, reality, free will, and so
on without coming to a good conclusion. Yes. Even the most educated and wisest
philosophers in history tripped and stumbled over questions. So will we.
That’s okay.
Another thing that frustrates me in current political
discourse is the myth of simplicity. Making decisions that can affect every
American citizen, and potentially people all around the world, isn’t simple.
Healthcare, the environment, justice reform, immigration, war, these are complicated
matters that affect us all in different ways, and realistically no perfect answers
exist. We must contend with which imperfect choice to make.
Just as philosophizing these issues should be difficult,
so too should making the decision as aren’t our decisions based upon our own
personal philosophy?
Why
it’s so important to have more philosophy in our society and politics
When we cannot defend our rights intellectually, we
open up the threat of having those rights taken away.
When we believe that our politics is merely two sides, a group waving Nazi
flags marching in Virginia can try to rationalize that “since we don’t belong
to this half, we must belong to the other half!” If as a society we are unable
to adequately communicate, “No, you belong to neither the Left nor the Right,
but are a separate group altogether who has no valid claim to legitimacy”, then
they very well may become a legitimate part of their chosen Party. If we cannot
distinguish hate speech and its implications from other forms
of speech, thinking it merely upsetting to our sensibilities or those specific
individuals attacked, we will fail to protect the
people who are now at risk. If we do not hold people morally responsible for their beliefs, we give a free pass to terrible
bigotry as if there won’t be tangible actions that come of it.
If we can recognize the differences between truth and
validity, strengthen and make more inclusive our identity,
recognize and push for great personhood for more, I think we’ll be heading in a
better direction. We just have to strive to be rational, consistent,
and moral. It's not easy, but we as a society can do it.
***
ACTION!
Study up. I recommend the video link above, but failing
that try to read up on the philosophical stances of what you care about. Try to
think of sticky situations that might be an exception to your current beliefs,
and figure out how you can rationalize it to where it is no longer an
exception, or considering revising your beliefs if you cannot.
***
What’s
Next?
Only thing on my list left is my thoughts on nostalgia,
and how we can take it a bit too far. I’ll have to sit down and think on some
other topics, perhaps look for recommendations.
No comments:
Post a Comment