This philosophical masterpiece by Rene Descartes centered in the idea that:
“There is reason to doubt everything I believe”
It is preposterous to propose such connotation when in the “real” life we often hold undisputed belief. So if the so called certain belief is merely an error, do we—to be close to truthfulness—shall stay away from holding such belief?
I think if the proposition can be brew even with a tiny fraction of probability—it is worth considering. Then before we mull over Descartes argument, we shall try to formulate if such probability does exist. The easiest way to verify such possibility is to find out whether our human biological features can be made consistent with the proposition.
One of the apparatus of Big Five personality traits is the openness to experience. What if we can meet with the most “open person” and the most “close person” in the world? What could be the personality of both?
The one that "close" might be living his life with full confident, believing that he is right all the time. There is a huge amount of defense mechanism operated in such confident personal. He might be skeptical of everything except that what he held belief in himself.
On the other hand, the "open" person might be living his life with full insecurity, easily seduce, believing that he is wrong all the time. The insecure person is also very skeptical, not to everything else but to belief held to himself. If such person does exist, our human biology can be made consistent with the proposition of Descartes. Even if the word “everything I believe” is a strong suggestion, our human biology can accommodate to that extent, as apparent to a psychological disorder people.
Let us began with Descartes...
The first meditation is dub as a “dialogue in a single voice”. It is because Descartes write from two points of view which are:
1. doubt is being advance
2. doubt is being resisted
and his whole proposition is being supported by five constructed arguments:
1. the senses have deceived us
What we aware comes from senses. But the senses reveal only what is outside, what is apparent. Deceived senses will mean deceived mind. If senses are prone to be deceived, does not it mean what we aware also prone to uncertainty?
2. some people have mad belief
3. dreaming argument
Have you ever had a dream, Neo, that you were so sure was real? What if you were unable to wake from that dream? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world?”~ Morpheus
The matrix movie has said it all. If there is a possibility that we cannot distinguish between when we are asleep and when we are awake, how can we not be a doubter?
4. all powerful God argument
5. malicious demon argument
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Doubt
It is sometimes worth to recall a thought or idea that I strongly believe in the past as absolute truth but now turn to be false and mislead. How does one encountered such changes of paradigm is phenomenon.
The thing I experience in myself every time I was in such situation is not the feeling of embarrassment that I thought I should have but rather the feelings of relief or maybe victory or maybe arrogant and such enlightenment is breathtaking and worth pursuing.
But somehow even though such reward is recognizable, I still find it hard to rationalize with opposite ideas as the wrath of cognitive dissonance is overwhelming me. If for instances that the reward is to be perceived as inferior to one stand to an idea, at least our own cognitive capacity should know for a fact that there is in every given situation a possibility that my ideas is wrong.
Such possibility however insignificant it is must compel me to be more humble and receiver to other opinions. But such possibility can also compel me to doubt every ideas or opinions that I hold right now. This is the proposition brought by Rene Descartes in First Meditation……
The thing I experience in myself every time I was in such situation is not the feeling of embarrassment that I thought I should have but rather the feelings of relief or maybe victory or maybe arrogant and such enlightenment is breathtaking and worth pursuing.
But somehow even though such reward is recognizable, I still find it hard to rationalize with opposite ideas as the wrath of cognitive dissonance is overwhelming me. If for instances that the reward is to be perceived as inferior to one stand to an idea, at least our own cognitive capacity should know for a fact that there is in every given situation a possibility that my ideas is wrong.
Such possibility however insignificant it is must compel me to be more humble and receiver to other opinions. But such possibility can also compel me to doubt every ideas or opinions that I hold right now. This is the proposition brought by Rene Descartes in First Meditation……
Friday, October 17, 2008
Moral Dilemmas (2) by E.J. Lemmon
British philosopher E.J. Lemmon wrote a thought provoking view on moral dilemmas. Lemmon highlights three classes of moral dilemma which I think can be summarized as:
1. Simplest form
2. Dilemmatic in the full sense
3. Extreme moral dilemma
The first type of moral dilemma, Lemmon took seriously the “crisis” of moral dilemmas mentioned in my last piece “the dilemma of moral dilemmas” and it can be sense throughout his writings.
For him, there is no contradiction between “ought to” and “ought not” simply because it is not a will like “must” and “must not”. So I ought to close the window and I ought not to close the window at the same time because “ought” is not necessarily a word of will that will be followed by action.
We can see three different moral apparatus in existence:
1. Two from conflicting sources (obligation, duty or principle)
2. and one is our own moral outlook.
I think what he mean by the cause of moral dilemma is the result of inadequacy of moral outlook in oneself. Deprive of moral, one will encounter dilemma if given two conflicting sources. By sources it must mean obligation, duty and principle. Thus every time obligation conflict with principle—while each of them has their own moral demand that govern their fulfillment—moral dilemma arises as apparent in Platonic case.
Dilemma arises when we lack moral outlook (immoral?) in facing these conflicting sources. So it must be a waste of time to seek guidance from our own private ethical code when moral dilemma occurs simply because we lack the needed views.
It is important to note the dissimilarity of making 1) a decision in a moral dilemma situation and 2) resolving the moral dilemma itself.
When a person in a situation of moral dilemma, the decision he make, doesn’t necessarily mean that the moral dilemma is resolved. He might still feel the existence of the dilemma in himself although he already has decided which action he should take (a decision in a moral dilemma situation). If for any reason that he does not feel the dilemma anymore, it is because he has adapted or create a “new moral outlook” in him thus deprive the existence of the moral dilemma (resolving the moral dilemma itself).
The remarkable difference of this sort of moral dilemma was that in order to preserve moral dilemma, a person in that situation will always make a decision that is not morally related. Lemmon proposed “consideration of ends” as an exemplary solution. Thus one will decide which “end” the course of action will give the best result. This solution while solving and decide which course of action one should take doesn’t implicate moral at all.
It is interesting to note that if one failed to make a decision—is itself a decision. One cannot ‘solve’ moral dilemma by running away from it.
We have discussed sources which possess their own intrinsic moral demand. What about sources which has none or lack of it? The second class of moral dilemma is called “dilemmatic in the full sense” by Lemmon. Citing example from Sartre, it is a situation when we do not know the moral demand of our obligation, duty and principle. A young man doesn’t know whether principle requires him to fight for Free French thus avenging his brother death in war or duty requires him to stay with his mother. Any decision that he make will marks the changed in moral outlook thus his overall attitude similar to one changed preferences from conservative to liberal or from being religious to atheism. The adoption of a new morality by an agent is frequently associated with the confrontation of moral dilemma.
The third class is an extreme moral dilemma. Not only that the person doesn’t know what morality requires of him (as evident in the second class), he doesn’t even have the moral outlook for working it out. He cited moral dilemma that faced Chamberlain in the negotiation with Hitler as an example. The extreme moral dilemma can require us to create new moral outlook. One of consideration in creating a new moral outlook is the desire to be true to oneself.
1. Simplest form
2. Dilemmatic in the full sense
3. Extreme moral dilemma
I
The first type of moral dilemma, Lemmon took seriously the “crisis” of moral dilemmas mentioned in my last piece “the dilemma of moral dilemmas” and it can be sense throughout his writings.
For him, there is no contradiction between “ought to” and “ought not” simply because it is not a will like “must” and “must not”. So I ought to close the window and I ought not to close the window at the same time because “ought” is not necessarily a word of will that will be followed by action.
We can see three different moral apparatus in existence:
1. Two from conflicting sources (obligation, duty or principle)
2. and one is our own moral outlook.
I think what he mean by the cause of moral dilemma is the result of inadequacy of moral outlook in oneself. Deprive of moral, one will encounter dilemma if given two conflicting sources. By sources it must mean obligation, duty and principle. Thus every time obligation conflict with principle—while each of them has their own moral demand that govern their fulfillment—moral dilemma arises as apparent in Platonic case.
Dilemma arises when we lack moral outlook (immoral?) in facing these conflicting sources. So it must be a waste of time to seek guidance from our own private ethical code when moral dilemma occurs simply because we lack the needed views.
It is important to note the dissimilarity of making 1) a decision in a moral dilemma situation and 2) resolving the moral dilemma itself.
When a person in a situation of moral dilemma, the decision he make, doesn’t necessarily mean that the moral dilemma is resolved. He might still feel the existence of the dilemma in himself although he already has decided which action he should take (a decision in a moral dilemma situation). If for any reason that he does not feel the dilemma anymore, it is because he has adapted or create a “new moral outlook” in him thus deprive the existence of the moral dilemma (resolving the moral dilemma itself).
The remarkable difference of this sort of moral dilemma was that in order to preserve moral dilemma, a person in that situation will always make a decision that is not morally related. Lemmon proposed “consideration of ends” as an exemplary solution. Thus one will decide which “end” the course of action will give the best result. This solution while solving and decide which course of action one should take doesn’t implicate moral at all.
It is interesting to note that if one failed to make a decision—is itself a decision. One cannot ‘solve’ moral dilemma by running away from it.
II
We have discussed sources which possess their own intrinsic moral demand. What about sources which has none or lack of it? The second class of moral dilemma is called “dilemmatic in the full sense” by Lemmon. Citing example from Sartre, it is a situation when we do not know the moral demand of our obligation, duty and principle. A young man doesn’t know whether principle requires him to fight for Free French thus avenging his brother death in war or duty requires him to stay with his mother. Any decision that he make will marks the changed in moral outlook thus his overall attitude similar to one changed preferences from conservative to liberal or from being religious to atheism. The adoption of a new morality by an agent is frequently associated with the confrontation of moral dilemma.
III
The third class is an extreme moral dilemma. Not only that the person doesn’t know what morality requires of him (as evident in the second class), he doesn’t even have the moral outlook for working it out. He cited moral dilemma that faced Chamberlain in the negotiation with Hitler as an example. The extreme moral dilemma can require us to create new moral outlook. One of consideration in creating a new moral outlook is the desire to be true to oneself.
This type of moral dilemma is:
1. Easier—he know for sure that he need a some basic moral rethinking
2. Harder—basic moral rethinking is harder work than working with existing moral principle.
E.J. Lemmon cited two things that he would like to see to be done:
Conclusion…
E.J. Lemmon cited two things that he would like to see to be done:
1. detailed breakdown of different kind of difficult moral situations.
2. Discussion that can resolve moral dilemmas.
This can help distinguish bad and good moral reason for making moral decision
This can help distinguish bad and good moral reason for making moral decision
Friday, September 26, 2008
A man in dilemma is a man with no moral
“A man in dilemma is a man with no moral”
I know it’s a bit too strong to propose a statement like this, but nothing is too strong for a philosopher :)
Let us begin the enquiry with a dilemma of moral dilemma that already been discussed in previous entry. A man in dilemma is ought to do Y and ought not to do Y. The problem with this statement is that it is contradicting. I for sure cannot be in England at the same time I am not in England. It just cannot be true. But one cannot reject that we in real life do experience ought to do and ought not to do concurrently. I ought to go to dinner but I ought not to go because I already made promise to go to concert as well.
Let us assume that the statement do contradict and cannot exist in parallel. Given two options that first we thought as a dilemma, the dilemma is automatically deprive because the two options is just not realistic. It cannot exist together. Then the option is not an option at all. It has transform to become item of preference—one which is superior or poorer from the other one. As a result, the two options we thought we had and which cause the dilemma earlier, has always been preferred of one item from the other. It is just the case of ignorance in which is the preferred one.
Because the preference is always there, it must be govern by some law. If I prefer fish to chicken, then the reason of the liking is the law—in our case, the moral outlook.
The moral outlook is the one that ensured “ought to” and “ought not to” to be incompatible to each other thus result in the deprivation of dilemma.
In contrary, let us assume that the statement of ought to and ought not to are compatible, if in the first case the incompatibility is cause by the existence of moral outlook, the compatibility must now cause by the removal of it. We can now proceed to conclude that dilemma can only exist if there is no moral outlook thus verify the earlier statement that a man in dilemma is a man with no moral outlook.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Dilemma of Moral Dilemma
The dilemma of Moral dilemma arise when there is a principle such as utility principle that would in every case tell us what was good, or right or virtuous. This will deprive the reality of the dilemma itself.
If there was no dilemma because such principle exists to deny it existence in the first place, what was our thought of having dilemma is merely an illusion or a mistake, which is absurd because the experience is so real.
We have now a real experience of dilemma in one hand, and in the other hand a resolution which is always exist to deny the existence of the dilemma in the first place.
How can we have a dilemma of A and B whereas A is always the morally right obligation to be made as revealed by the principle?
It seems that moral principle or law is not compatible with the dilemma itself. Or is it?
My opinion on this incompatibility requires some deep insight and not just some heuristic thinking to the problem.
If there was a principle underlying moral, where does it come from?
I propel to propose that it must originate from humankind itself. If it indeed correct, it forced us to accept the probability that a perfectly or a complete human being exist.
The principle of morality thus ingrained in within this complete human being. Whatever he does must be accordance to the highest standards of morality thus deprive of any wrongdoing.
We, on the other hand, although real in existence was only a bit of those completely human being. Our deviation from the “true self” varies from person to person. There is a noble man whose deviation is modest and some who is morally degraded departure farthest from the true self.
I think if we understand the concept of true self, it is clear that common people are always deviated but there will always be a correct or right path which we can follow.
Back to the question on how can we have a 1.dilemma of A and B whereas 2.A is always right, it can be solved by separating 1 from 2.
Let us take a complete human being as an example. Even though he is free from any wrongdoing, this does not take away the probability that he might encounter a dilemma.
He might promised his friend to go to concert while forget that he had already promise to have dinner with his wife the same day. As a complete human being he instantly knows that the most preferable thing to do morally, for example, is to have dinner with his wife.
Although he always know the answer to any moral incompatibility, forgetfulness which is the source if his dilemma is not part of his completeness. He being complete does not deprive his nature to be human which include—to forget.
From this we can see clearly that having a principle of morality as a foundation of moral will never deprive dilemma because it simply a different issues.
If there was no dilemma because such principle exists to deny it existence in the first place, what was our thought of having dilemma is merely an illusion or a mistake, which is absurd because the experience is so real.
We have now a real experience of dilemma in one hand, and in the other hand a resolution which is always exist to deny the existence of the dilemma in the first place.
How can we have a dilemma of A and B whereas A is always the morally right obligation to be made as revealed by the principle?
It seems that moral principle or law is not compatible with the dilemma itself. Or is it?
My opinion on this incompatibility requires some deep insight and not just some heuristic thinking to the problem.
If there was a principle underlying moral, where does it come from?
I propel to propose that it must originate from humankind itself. If it indeed correct, it forced us to accept the probability that a perfectly or a complete human being exist.
The principle of morality thus ingrained in within this complete human being. Whatever he does must be accordance to the highest standards of morality thus deprive of any wrongdoing.
We, on the other hand, although real in existence was only a bit of those completely human being. Our deviation from the “true self” varies from person to person. There is a noble man whose deviation is modest and some who is morally degraded departure farthest from the true self.
I think if we understand the concept of true self, it is clear that common people are always deviated but there will always be a correct or right path which we can follow.
Back to the question on how can we have a 1.dilemma of A and B whereas 2.A is always right, it can be solved by separating 1 from 2.
Let us take a complete human being as an example. Even though he is free from any wrongdoing, this does not take away the probability that he might encounter a dilemma.
He might promised his friend to go to concert while forget that he had already promise to have dinner with his wife the same day. As a complete human being he instantly knows that the most preferable thing to do morally, for example, is to have dinner with his wife.
Although he always know the answer to any moral incompatibility, forgetfulness which is the source if his dilemma is not part of his completeness. He being complete does not deprive his nature to be human which include—to forget.
From this we can see clearly that having a principle of morality as a foundation of moral will never deprive dilemma because it simply a different issues.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Moral Dilemma
What if your boss told you to stay back but you had already promised your wife to go to cinema? You decision: Angry boss? or angry wife? If the dilemma arise from our own desire, it is a practical dilemma. But dilemma involving obligation like promise is a typical of Moral dilemma, one that cracks the head of philosopher.
One of them is British philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806-1973) with his utility principle which is based on the thought of Epicurus, an Athens philosopher of 341 B.C. He rejects moral laws (religion etc) as being incapable and insufficient to be an umpire to solve the dilemma. The solution from moral law is often taken literally from the text. Too rigid? Metaphorist should rejoice then.
What is utility principle is all about?
Sometimes called Greatest Happiness Principle, utility principle said that pleasure is human being ultimate goal. Sound interesting? Well, how many times have you heard people said that they just want to be happy? Many times I guess.
So our end is to be pleasure, which include of being happy and away from pain. But some opposition of Mills accused that if pleasure is the ultimate end, then it is comparable to animal or beast. It is true though, that animal is easily pleasured. Noisy cat, will go licking its fur happily after been served food. If pleasure is what human being is up to, then it is no different to the cat, rat, boar, pig and all other animal. But does human being can be satisfied as easy as animal? Errrr… not many will claim yes.
So if there is different in the degree in where pleasure can give satisfaction to human and animal, quality of pleasure must exist. One pleasure can be better than other. Therefore, the “brainless” animal can never attain the pleasure of literature, culture and other mental pleasure. They are stuck with their bodily pleasure of eat, sleep, sex, etc. Mills claim a consensus of utilitarian philosopher where they put mental pleasure ahead of bodily pleasure. Human as a superior being will never lower itself to the standards of inferior beings no matter how easy the lives of inferior being seem to be. Because of pride? or dignity? or perhaps liberty?
He famously said: “it is better to be human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied. It is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.”
Wow! Well said.
Back to the original dilemma that we had encountered earlier, the decision can be made using the utility principle as an umpire. Whether we accept our work obligation or fulfilling the promise we made, it is dependable to the sum of all happiness. If the sum of all happiness to work is greater than the sum of happiness in fulfilling the promise to go to cinema, than the former is the morally right decision. Sum of all happiness should consist all of the stakeholders which can include the wife, boss, society, government, culture and all that is relevant to the said circumstances.
The ironic is, if utility principle or any other theories can give better understanding on how decision of moral dilemma is reach—there will be no dilemmas exist at all—because one moral obligation is always perceived better than the other. It is disturbing because the way I see it, moral dilemma is so real!! This is what philosophy is all about. Crispy.
One of them is British philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806-1973) with his utility principle which is based on the thought of Epicurus, an Athens philosopher of 341 B.C. He rejects moral laws (religion etc) as being incapable and insufficient to be an umpire to solve the dilemma. The solution from moral law is often taken literally from the text. Too rigid? Metaphorist should rejoice then.What is utility principle is all about?
Sometimes called Greatest Happiness Principle, utility principle said that pleasure is human being ultimate goal. Sound interesting? Well, how many times have you heard people said that they just want to be happy? Many times I guess.
So our end is to be pleasure, which include of being happy and away from pain. But some opposition of Mills accused that if pleasure is the ultimate end, then it is comparable to animal or beast. It is true though, that animal is easily pleasured. Noisy cat, will go licking its fur happily after been served food. If pleasure is what human being is up to, then it is no different to the cat, rat, boar, pig and all other animal. But does human being can be satisfied as easy as animal? Errrr… not many will claim yes.
So if there is different in the degree in where pleasure can give satisfaction to human and animal, quality of pleasure must exist. One pleasure can be better than other. Therefore, the “brainless” animal can never attain the pleasure of literature, culture and other mental pleasure. They are stuck with their bodily pleasure of eat, sleep, sex, etc. Mills claim a consensus of utilitarian philosopher where they put mental pleasure ahead of bodily pleasure. Human as a superior being will never lower itself to the standards of inferior beings no matter how easy the lives of inferior being seem to be. Because of pride? or dignity? or perhaps liberty?
He famously said: “it is better to be human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied. It is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.”
Wow! Well said.
Back to the original dilemma that we had encountered earlier, the decision can be made using the utility principle as an umpire. Whether we accept our work obligation or fulfilling the promise we made, it is dependable to the sum of all happiness. If the sum of all happiness to work is greater than the sum of happiness in fulfilling the promise to go to cinema, than the former is the morally right decision. Sum of all happiness should consist all of the stakeholders which can include the wife, boss, society, government, culture and all that is relevant to the said circumstances.
The ironic is, if utility principle or any other theories can give better understanding on how decision of moral dilemma is reach—there will be no dilemmas exist at all—because one moral obligation is always perceived better than the other. It is disturbing because the way I see it, moral dilemma is so real!! This is what philosophy is all about. Crispy.
It's good to be back
After a year I decided to blog again.
I changed the name a little bit and add "philosopher" to reflect my newly founded enthusiasm in philosophy. By the way, I'm now officially called amateur psychologist (of lower caste, of course) after completing my diploma in psychology early this year. Now, I am a philosophy student attached to Birkbeck college, University of London.
I added new ingrediants to this blog: 1. Yawning and 2. Babling of philosophy mumbo jumbo.
I changed the name a little bit and add "philosopher" to reflect my newly founded enthusiasm in philosophy. By the way, I'm now officially called amateur psychologist (of lower caste, of course) after completing my diploma in psychology early this year. Now, I am a philosophy student attached to Birkbeck college, University of London.
I added new ingrediants to this blog: 1. Yawning and 2. Babling of philosophy mumbo jumbo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
