This is Mycroft. A lot of you said welcome home, so thank you for that, and also for your support when I had that bit of trouble at school. We had to write essays as punishment, and I don't remember all of mine, but this is the beginning.
I've been told that hitting Mark was the wrong thing to do. In this case, most people seem to mean 'against the rules' rather than morally wrong. It was against the rules, which is convenient. There's no need to sort out morality, or decide who to punish, or whose penalty should be heavier. We both broke the rules. We both sit in detention and write essays.
The other thing I've heard often in the past twenty-four hours is that 'violence is wrong'. In this case, I think people do mean morally wrong, rather than just against the rules. People repeat this without appearing to give it much thought; they treat it as a universal truth, as if no one could possibly disagree.
People do disagree. Our government disagrees, or we wouldn't currently have soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. We wouldn't have armed forces at all, because if violence is really wrong, always, in every case, then it's wrong to use it to defend yourself, too.
I don't know if it's wrong or not. I think the issue is more complicated than that, and I wish people would stop pretending it's simple.
I think that what I did was wrong, not because it was violent, but because I did it without thinking of the consequences. I don't mean the consequences to me, the detention and the essay I'm writing. I mean that what I wanted was for Mark to stop being horrible about people I love, and I don't think hitting him accomplished that, so it wasn't a very good idea.
There was a lot more, because we were there for hours, but that was the main point. But I don't know what I could've done instead that would've been more effective. I've been thinking about it, and I still don't.
In a way, it did help. I've met a few other boys because of it who think what I did was right and brave and also 'really cool'. I didn't expect that. And a lot of people here said that it was good to stand up for your family, too, and that some things are worth fighting for.
I don't know if that's true or not. A lot of things are confusing right now. But even though it wasn't very effective, I don't think I'm sorry I hit him.
I've been told that hitting Mark was the wrong thing to do. In this case, most people seem to mean 'against the rules' rather than morally wrong. It was against the rules, which is convenient. There's no need to sort out morality, or decide who to punish, or whose penalty should be heavier. We both broke the rules. We both sit in detention and write essays.
The other thing I've heard often in the past twenty-four hours is that 'violence is wrong'. In this case, I think people do mean morally wrong, rather than just against the rules. People repeat this without appearing to give it much thought; they treat it as a universal truth, as if no one could possibly disagree.
People do disagree. Our government disagrees, or we wouldn't currently have soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. We wouldn't have armed forces at all, because if violence is really wrong, always, in every case, then it's wrong to use it to defend yourself, too.
I don't know if it's wrong or not. I think the issue is more complicated than that, and I wish people would stop pretending it's simple.
I think that what I did was wrong, not because it was violent, but because I did it without thinking of the consequences. I don't mean the consequences to me, the detention and the essay I'm writing. I mean that what I wanted was for Mark to stop being horrible about people I love, and I don't think hitting him accomplished that, so it wasn't a very good idea.
There was a lot more, because we were there for hours, but that was the main point. But I don't know what I could've done instead that would've been more effective. I've been thinking about it, and I still don't.
In a way, it did help. I've met a few other boys because of it who think what I did was right and brave and also 'really cool'. I didn't expect that. And a lot of people here said that it was good to stand up for your family, too, and that some things are worth fighting for.
I don't know if that's true or not. A lot of things are confusing right now. But even though it wasn't very effective, I don't think I'm sorry I hit him.
49 comments:
Mycroft, I'm sorry you've been having a difficult time at school. I hope that there have been good times, too. I know that doesn't help much when things are confusing and there's no clear answer, though.
I'm not going to say fighting isn't the answer sometimes. Sometimes, there is very little choice in the matter, and it still may not resolve anything. But I think that it was good you stood up for your family and for what you believe. It's not always easy to do that.
For what it's worth, I think you're a very smart, intelligent young man who is composed and mature beyond your years. I think you acted, as you said, in a moment of anger, which even the best of us have. You know the consequences of your actions, and you are old enough to accept them and understand them. And I, personally, am proud of you for being willing to stand up and do what you think is right.
Thank you for letting us know how you are. I hope you have a great holiday, Mycroft!
Thank you, Piplover. I'm not sure I'm having hard times exactly. School hasn't been as bad in general as I thought it would be, and this incident in particular seems to have led to gaining some friends, although I'm not sure they like me for very good reasons.
It's been...confusing. The literature and Greek classes are good though.
Hello, Mycroft. First let me say that, as someone who graded more than her share of college papers in her day, even if I disagreed with you I'd have to give that high marks, especially for clarity. I don't think I've ever read a better definition of pure procedural justice. (And you made a good start into the debate between deotological and consequentialist ethics, too.)
As it happens, I do not disagree with you.
(I'm going on the assumption that as you put this up you either want to discuss this, or don't mind if we do. If I'm wrong, feel free to skip the rest of this.)
First, practically speaking, I don't know that there was anything else you could have done--now, with your specific level of experience and with this particular person--that would have had a better result. There ARE some ways of dealing with that sort of thing, but they depend on the audience (if there is one), your ability to judge how a specific person will react (which requires a natural ability and experience), the amount of time you have to deal with it (which in this case was none), and your skill at manipulating people (which also requires natural ability and a great deal of practice and caution). Sometimes nothing will work--there really was nothing I could do when someone left a hate-filled Nazi flier in my mailbox at graduate school but report it, which accomplished exactly nothing. And your action did have the desired immediate effect, which is something.
This is a pretty long comment, so I'll continue in another one.
Hello Mycroft. I hope you're enjoying being home :-)
I think you've got it exactly right in your essay. People do say that violence is wrong - I'm one of the people who say it, but it is more complicated than that. I suppose people use it as shorthand for saying that violence is wrong, but sometimes it's the only option; sometimes it's the lesser of two evils. And lots of us think that if we "sometimes violence is right", it's implicitly saying "it's OK for the stronger person to win, regardless of the rights or wrongs of the situation.
Do you remember John ran a poll here a while ago, talking about whether violence ever solved anything. A few of us - including Lestrade - were saying that violence may stop a problem in the short term, but it doesn't solve the problem. That's exactly what you found - Mark stopped saying horrible things about people you love right then, but it probably hasn't changed his mind or his attitude.
I'm very glad that you were able to stand up for yourself, and for the people you love, and for what you think is right (does it sound patronising if I say I'm proud of you, too? I mean it in an entirely non-patronising way).
As Pip has said, you are an intelligent and thoughtful young man, you understand that your actions have consequences, and you can decide to take those consequences as an acceptable price for taking the action you deem necessary.
I'm glad you've had some good experiences as well at school this term :-) I hope you have a wonderful holiday, too.
I think we've both said everything we have to say about this, Mycroft. But I want you - and everyone else here - to know that whatever my stance on violence, I'm proud of you, and I'm incredibly touched that you would stand up for me and John. You're a fine young man, and I'm proud to call you a friend.
As for the moral force of "violence is wrong" ...well. That's a nice, sweeping statement.
The question of when violence is acceptable has long roots in philosophy, but--and I have to admit I really should go back and check on this, because my memory on this is hazy--I think the flat statement "violence is wrong" largely has its roots in the original forms of one of two religious traditions, Christianity (turn the other cheek) and Buddhism. So yes, that is a moral argument, but that particular argument is based in revealed truth and is not universally accepted within either of those traditions. (Something for you to research, if you are interested. And something for me to research now that I'm thinking about it.)
Most philosophical and religious traditions qualify that to permitting self-defense. Many, in fact, see self-defense as a moral requirement--indeed, many consider the defense of others as a moral requirement as well. And the arguments spiral out from there. (Beginning with defining "violence" and "self-defense.") We can discuss it when and if you like, but for now I'll just say that it is, in fact, a gray area, and one in which, on a practical level, a great deal of caution is required, since it is very easy for not just the arguments about violence but violence itself to spiral out of control.
Personally, and in this case: I think that your instinctive reaction--to protect those you love--was correct. I think that you may not have had other viable options available to you, and that being jostled physically and attacked verbally may have risen to the level of self-defense at the low level of violence you employed. (Good thing neither of you was carrying or thought to use a pocket knife, for example.)
(And to finish with a purely instinctive reaction of my own--when I hear "violence is wrong", I automatically think "Warsaw ghetto." Me, I'd want an honor guard. And there is nothing philosophical or reasoned about that.)
Lestrade - I don't think anyone here doubted that for a second :-)
What Nameless said. :)
Hello, Nameless. I am very, very happy to be home, yes.
I do remember the poll. I don't think the people who voted yes meant that it's okay for the stronger person to win even if he or she is wrong. I think they meant sometimes a short term solution is better than doing nothing.
Also, if my goal had been to get him to leave me alone, this would've been an effective solution, at least so far. But if I were the headmaster, I would make him go to Pride and talk to people there all day. I'm sure he couldn't be so horrible after that. Writing essays really doesn't solve anything.
I think they meant sometimes a short term solution is better than doing nothing.
If I recall correctly, I wasn't here for that poll, but if I had been, I would have voted yes, and that is exactly what I would have meant.
Writing essays really doesn't solve anything.
Absolutely correct. But it makes school authority figures feel like they've done something appropriately punitive.
I'm not sure whether having Mark talk to people at Pride would make a difference--that would depend on the attitude he went in with, and why he held those opinions in the first place. But it certainly would have a better shot at changing his views than writing an essay.
Hello, Rereader. I had to look up deontological and consequentialist ethics. Those are interesting concepts. It seems like all the ethics in our society are consequentialist.
I'm not religious, and I haven't read most of the Bible, or any Buddhist texts. I probably need to do that. When you say it's not universally accepted, do you mean by the religious leaders in those traditions, or by normal people who supposedly believe in those traditions?
The Dalai Lama said that he doesn't want Tibet back if it has to be taken by force. I'm not sure I would feel like that if someone stole my country, even if I was sure that violence was wrong. But he really is sure about it, and is acting on that even though it must be really hard and he'll probably die without being able to go home again. I don't know how anyone can be that sure of anything.
And I think I should go to bed now. This is a lot to think about.
I work in a school and I also had a thoroughly bloody awful time at secondary school. It is very, very difficult dealing with bullying. The 'company line' is always, don't retaliate, they'll get bored, they only do it because they know it bothers you, ignore it and it will go away.
Unfortunately, it's not true. My bullying stopped when I pinned somebody up against what I thought was a wall and very politely said 'Stop doing that' (the that in question was following me all through the town throwing stones at me). This was after four and a half years of attempting to ignore them and it will stop.
However you do have to think through the consequences. For instance what I thought was a wall was in reality a plate glass window, I was very, very lucky that I didn't put the girl through the window.
So I think in summary, sometimes violence is the answer but on the whole acting in temper isn't.
Mycroft, I'm glad that you're dealing with this whole issues in a very thoughtful way. These are the sorts of questions that we all wrestle with through life, and most of us only have our answers, such as they are, "for now". None of us has the definitive answer (and I suspect that the Dalai Lama would tell you that he only has the definitive answer for him, not for anyone else).
I think you're right about the poll, but also don't think that people who voted no were saying that violence is never acceptable under any circumstances either. I think we all made the choice closest to our own views, but in the knowledge that this is not a black and white issues. it is, as you are finding, entirely shades of grey.
Good night, sleep well :-)
Sleep well, Mycroft! I'll just leave these responses for you to consider in the morning (or whenever you feel like reading them), then.
Not all ethics in today's world are consequentialist, but in the West, at least, most are presented that way. Certainly secular Western society requires consequentialist reasons for ethics that are given the force of law. However, living in the US, I see a lot of deontological arguments--or deontological arguments given a thin veneer of consequentialism--because our political life is currently so heavily religion-influenced.
I don't know that you need to read the Bible or Buddhist texts or other religious writings (Taoism, for example, is also still fairly influential in China but it is VERY hard to make heads or tails of), but it's not a bad idea. Those texts still have a major influence on large swaths of the world, directly and indirectly, so it's well to know something of them. (Of course, I myself make it a point to look at the writings of those religions with which I am unfamiliar and to listen to lectures about them as well, so I can be considered biased. But I find it interesting and enlightening.)
When I say non-violence is not universally accepted by those religions, I mean that not all branches of those religions agree that all violence is wrong. At the grossest level, consider the Crusades--no cheek-turning there. Indeed, very few Christian sects (Quakers leap to mind) believe in strict non-violence. As for Buddhism--Zen Buddhists, for example, do practice self-defense; also, some Chinese Buddhist monasteries have had their monks study martial arts for centuries as part of their religious training.
The Dalai Lama is the leader of a specific sect of Tibetan Buddhism, and so far as I know or have reason to think he is completely sincere about non-violence. To the best of my understanding, the original Buddha would have agreed. It takes an extraordinarily high level of spirituality to not only think that but to live it. I don't know how he can not only feel that way but also act on that belief without any signs of regret or anger or struggle, but he does. I admire it, but I could never do that. (Which is probably why the right religion for me is not Buddhism. Judaism not only permits violence in self-defense, it is a positive requirement.)
If you want to ask about or discuss this more, please feel free. (Or really, anything else. If you touch on something I'd rather not discuss I'll say so, and I will not be offended or annoyed.) And if you like, RR or Rere is more than fine (instead of Rereader).
I was one of the people who said "good for you" when you punched the little homophobic cretin. Neither of you did lasting damage, after all, and in my experience ignoring a bullying problem doesn't make it stop.
But double plus good for you on that essay, which I feel will be more effective than the punch itself. Reasoning doesn't work on the small minded, but it ought to work on those in the academic field --- you've done an excellent job from that snippet of both meeting the parameters of your punishment and pointing out what a gutless and ineffectual punishment it was. Punishing the behaviour (fighting) does nothing to address the cause (bigotry), nor does it distinguish bullying from defense. I'm even more proud of you for not writing something pat and acceptable, but instead saying exactly what you think.
So again, good for you. I hope you know how remarkable you are. :)
I am not a Buddhist, but I was raised partly in the culture (so anyone who does practice can definitely chime in to teach me!). Also, I'm really hoping this comes out right and I don't make a mess of it all and offend/upset someone. *desk*
As far as I understand it, Buddhism is about acceptance -- not that it's okay for people to hate, but that there is suffering in this world and that suffering is a lesson (rather than a moral judgment). As there is a belief in reincarnation, this life is about learning from your past mistakes and improving yourself for your next life until you come to enlightment and are released from the cycle to become one with the universe.
Depending on how you interpret certain ideas, bad things that happen to you aren't meant to 'punish' you for mistakes you made in your past lives, but to give you a second chance to react better to the situation. You have a choice to learn and make better decisions in the future, or to be bitter about it. "Better decisions," of course, can be very vague, because it can range from the apolitical/personal to the political/public. Some people choose to focus on the self, others interpret it as a call to serve the community, and still others see it as a basis for political action. The Buddhist charity organization I work with (for political reasons) is apolitical, but focuses on conservation, emergency relief efforts, literacy education, and free medical care all over the world. Its members are asked to make a choice to serve the community and affect change, rather than sit on the sidelines and do nothing. The choice to take action, then, is the lesson that these members choose to learn in this lifetime. Does that make sense?
Coming from a background that stresses the loyalty of the family to each other, I would have reacted the same way that you did, Mycroft, to Mark's hateful comments. What you are doing now, which is a good thing, is reflecting on that experience and deciding how it will shape you as a person. I have no doubt that you will make the best choice in the future, even if that does not mean non-violence.
As Buddhism respects life in all its forms, Mark has...a lot more growth to accomplish than you because he hates. Yes, Buddhism shuns violence, but hatred is far more of a spiritual chain because you cannot love if you hate.
The way it has been taught to me, I think Buddhism asks us to try to be better than we are. The "do not" of the religion (in practice) is quite often "should not," and well, it's okay to fail, as long as we learn something from that failure to become better people.
As for Tibet... it's complicated. Politics aside, most of the people I know deeply respect the Dalai Lama for his ability to love, forgive, and find joy in situations that would have most people angry and bitter at the world.
I hope I've made you feel better Mycroft, and not worse.
*hugs*
~A from NW
Mycroft, I stand by my first reaction - I just want to hug you. Do you get to read each other's essays? I think that it would be hard not to be moved by what you have written, and I wonder if Mark, when it came time to writing out reasons for what he'd done, realized that his "reasons" were ignorant and petty.
By the way--and totally beside the point!--I like the new background! It feels partway between autumnal and wintry, most appropriate.
Nameless, I wish someone had definitive answers. It doesn't seem right that I could grow up and get old and die and not even know what's really right and wrong. And Sherlock doesn't worry about it at all. He just says Mark deserved it and he'll kick him if he ever sees him.
Anonymous: sometimes violence is the answer but on the whole acting in temper isn't.
That is definitely true.
RR: I see a lot of deontological arguments--or deontological arguments given a thin veneer of consequentialism--because our political life is currently so heavily religion-influenced.
Do you mean that politicians are justifying their actions by saying they comply with religious rules?
I'm not sure I understand deontology. All I've read is the Wikipedia article though so maybe that's why, but it seems to go around in circles. It says, quoting Kant: 'Nothing in the world can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a good will.' And a person has a good will when he 'acts out of respect for the moral law'.
So you have to act with good intentions, but you also have to follow the 'moral law' which is left undefined (at least by Wikipedia). Good intentions are useless unless you follow the rules, and following the rules is useless without good intentions?
X, thank you. I don't think anyone at the school will care about my essay though. I don't think they even care that it's an ineffective punishment, and if they know that, I don't understand why they bothered to do it at all.
A from NW: Thank you for the explanation, and for this part especially: I think Buddhism asks us to try to be better than we are.
That's really helpful.
Innie, I don't think we get to read each other's essays, though I would like to read what he wrote. I'm not completely sure anyone will read them, to be honest.
Wow, Mycroft, you and the others really make me think things through. Thank you. I was really impressed by your essay, by the way. It's too bad that you didn't get to read each other's essay, though. I feel that it would have been illuminating. Ah well. I hope that the next term will be a bit smoother for you, and that everyone has a great holiday.
If you're still up, Mycroft, I'm making breakfast downstairs for me and Sherlock. Join us if you want.
Good morning, Mycroft!
Is it that you've been up for a whike, or that you think in your sleep? (Yes, I kid. But wow, that's a lot for 5:00 am!)
Let's take a step back. When I was studying political philosophy in grad school, the professor defined deontology loosely as rule-based morality--an action is right because it follows a rule, and the rEal-world results of following the rule were immaterial in determining whether the action was right or not. This was in contrast to consequentialism, which determines an actions rightness by the results.
The Wikipedia article (which I just looked over and will have to read more carefully later), if i understand it correctly, employs a more restrictive definition of deontology: an action is right if follows a rule or set of rules, and with the intention of following the rules. So if someone happens to comply with the rule because it brings about a good result, that diesn't count as right action.
Now, let's leave Kant aside for the moment and turn to religion. Most religions do define right action as that which follows the rules set down by its deity, irrespective of the real-world consequences. More to the point, the rules do not need to be justified by the results of following them--the rules are the word of God, period. (Not all deontological rules are religious--Kant is not the only philosopher to attempt to build a deontological system that does not rely on a supernatural being--and not all religions are deontological, but the Judeo-Christian religions are a relatively familiar example of a mostly deontological system, so let's start there.)
So, yes, American politicians not infrequently propose or oppose legislation or policies on a religious (read "Christian") basis, whether explicitly or implicitly. To take a particularly relevant example, the Republican Party has been making political hay for the last several Presidential elections on the question of gay marriage. Sometimes an attempt is made to provide the veneer of (necessarily speculative) results-based reasons, but even most of those boil down to "homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so."
(If there is a different definition for "family values," I'd like to hear it.)
We can discuss the differences between the looser and more strict definitions of deontology if you like, but I'd like to check some philosophy-related reference books and other sources I have to make sure I have it right, and I'm afraid it will have to wait for morning (it's 12:45 am here, and I'm already in bed. But I promise I WILL check and get back to you.)
And as for Kant--he doesn't compress well at the best of times and that passage you quoted from Wikipedia makes no sense to me at all. Let me check some books on that as well. To be honest, all I remember clearly from Kant is the phrase "the Categorical Imperative" and his insistance that people must never be used as means but only as ends, neither of which seems helpful here.
You are giving me quite the mental workout, Mycroft, and I really appreciate it! I promise I will look these things up and get back to you later today--that will probably be this evening for you. Okay?
(And please excuse all typos and other weirdnesses--I'm typing on a tiny iPod Touch screen and can't back read.)
Ah, good morning, Lestrade! Want some philosophy with that breakfast? :)
All a bit much for me this early. I'll have to sit down and read it all tonight, I think.
Smart man. :)
Eek! Could someone tell me how it got from midnight to 1:00 am without me noticing?!
RR - time travel? Aliens? Really interesting blogs?
Mycroft, you're right, it doesn't seem fair. But, as Sherlock is finding out this week too, life isn't fair. Besides, for many of us, the joy is not in finding a definitive answer early on and sticking with it, it's discovering the answers as we go along, learning from our experiences, and altering our versions of the "definitive answers" in light of the information we acquire.
There aren't any easy answers here. Would that there were. But giving big issues serious consideration, taking on board other opinions and perspectives, then finding your own truth and then - most importantly - being open to changing that truth in the light of new information and experiences - is a key part of becoming your own person. I think you're doing brilliantly so far.
Morning Mycroft. Just managing to catch up here. I agree with Nameless in that I think you're doing brilliantly. I also agree with her in the importance of being open to changing your truth in the light of new experiences - I think one of the worst things you can do is insist that once you've discovered something to be true it can never change.
Welcome home Mycroft.
My view on violence is mostly this: does it solve the problem?
If it does I'll just go with it (throw a punch or something) if it doesn't then it's better if I don't do anything.
And another thing...I've been wanting to say this for a while, and feel free to ignore me if this offend you. I think you guys should feel really lucky to live in UK. In my country you're not even allowed to be gay, and a lot of people made jokes and show outright disgust towards them even teachers... Yes the age is changing but it does not seem so over here.
Lyra, I really do feel lucky for that, yes.
Obviously through the job I probably see more than most, and it's still shocking how many cases of homophobic, racist, religiously motivated or other hate crimes there are each year (almost 2000 homophobic hate crimes this year in London alone. And that's just the ones which are reported - many aren't.) but I still feel lucky and grateful that, by and large, who you decide to sleep with or have a relationship with is seen as no ones business but your own. And defintely grateful that the way you're born - the way nature made you - isn't a crime.
I can only hope things will change in other places, where people aren't so lucky.
Hey, Mycroft. Thanks for posting a bit of your essay. I don't have much to offer by way of advice, but I will say this: anyone who stands up for people they love is a strong, good person, worthy of praise. And gracefully accepting any consequences of those actions, if they come, even more so the sign of a mature, wise person. I think we'll all have a lot to learn from you as the years go on. All the best.
Mycroft, I should be able to get to my desk in about half an hour, maybe less. Do you have a preference as to where I should start?
Just not with Kant, please.
Ha! That made me quite literally laugh out loud--I've been trying to find a polite way of weaseling out of Kant for the past few hours. He only came in as an example of non-religious deontology, anyway, so he can certainly be set aside for the foreseeable future, I think.
Excellent. I may not respond until tomorrow; I hope that's all right. We're going to eat dinner soon, and then Sherlock will get glitter all over everything.
(Or sequins. Sequins do tend to cling to all the wrong things. And you may well find yourself part of a sequin-gluing brigade. It takes a LOT of sequins to sparkle up anything, in my experience.)
Back in a few!
Okay! Back.
Since you asked me about deontology specifically and I put you off about it last night, I'll give you a quick (well, quick for me) answer to that first.
Start by forgetting the Wikipedia article. I haven't found that stricter definition anywhere else as a general definition of deontology. (Perhaps it is meant to apply only to Kantian ethics? Never mind. *waves it aside*) So far, every other definition I've found, including the Oxford Companion to Philosophy, defines it more or less the way my grad school professor did: According to deontology an action is wrong because it follows a rule that says it is wrong, and the real-world results of following the rule were immaterial in determining whether the action was right or not. That is, acts are wrong (or right) in themselves, because they just are.
Consequentialist theories, by contrast, determine the rightness or wrongness of acts by their outcomes.
Of course, it gets much more complicated--this IS philosophy--and there is also a third school of thought that doubts that this is a meaningful distinction at all. (If you want to go into that third idea or any of this in more depth I will--let me know.) For all that it's proven to be useful to many philosophical schools, so I wouldn't throw out the idea entirely.
Hi Mycroft! What an interesting discussion! I freely admit that much of it is going over my head, though. :)
This book may be of interest - 'The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values' by Sam Harris. My partner (who did some philosophy at uni) read it recently and thought it was really insightful. It was due back at the library before I got a chance to read it, alas.
There's a video on the topic here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww&feature=player_embedded
I wish someone had definitive answers. It doesn't seem right that I could grow up and get old and die and not even know what's really right and wrong.
This is a big one. I'm sorry, but the fact is, you could know--you could be absolutely, 100% sure that you know--and still be wrong.
That's okay, though. You listen to people whose judgment you respect--that's a good starting point. You discuss it with them, and you think about what they've said and their reasons, and you use "your intelligence guided by experience" to decide what you agree with and what you don't. You study what major figures and thinkers of the past and present have said--not all at once!--and you discuss those ideas with teachers, friends, people whose judgment you respect, and you modify your ideas as seems called for. You go back to ideas you've already considered and weigh one set of beliefs against the other. You add your growing experience and knowledge to the equation. This will go on your whole life, if you care about right and wrong in a serious way. The only time you need to worry is when you freeze your ideas and stop considering, weighing, judging, thinking.
(And while a steady, structured course of philosophy and theology is one way to go about it, it is by no means the only way. It depends on the person--some people do perfectly well just talking with people they know and employing their own judgment and experience. Some people do just fine following one religion in a noticing way. And some people don't care about theories, they just care about people, and they do just fine that way, too. The important thing, in my opinion, is to keep your mind open--not thoughtlessly open, so that nasty things can take over, but open enough that you don't reject ideas out of hand.)
The only shortcut I'm aware of is turning the whole issue over to someone else and let them make the decisions. I think this is where a religion or political ideology turns into a cult--when the followers are supposed to turn off their brains and accept everything the leaders tell them as received truth.
And if anyone disagrees, I hope to hear about it! (I could be wrong, after all.)
Now, if you'd like to attack philosophy, might I suggest a more structured approach? As I mentioned...somewhere...it's a field in which people tend to build on ideas that came before, sometimes taking an earlier theory farther, or springing off from an earlier theory, or taking issue with earlier ideas. (This is true even when they claim they are starting fresh--that's almost always a sign that they are disagreeing with earlier ideas.) So generally the standard chronological is a good way to go.
(And it means you don't get to Kant for ages, since he's 18th century and the philosophy courses generally start with Socrates or the pre-Socratics. Heh.)
Best is having a teacher to ask questions of--are there any philosophy courses offered at Harrow?
If not, or if you want to go your own way, you could try looking on iTunes U to see what they have in the way of introductory philosophy courses--since those are all free, you can try out a lecture or two in each until you find a lecturer that works for you. (There's one very good set of lectures there titled "Justice with Michael Sandel" from Harvard--it's political philosophy rather than general philosophy, but it does deal with ethics albeit on a large scale.)
And if none of the iTunes series work for you, there are audio courses available for purchase. I've bought quite a number from The Teaching Company on various subjects (I'm downloading a course on comparative religious right now, in fact) and they've mostly been quite good. I'm sure there are other companies that have similar offerings as well.
For both the iTunes and purchased course options, you can get the books and read along--and of course they let you go at your own speed, which should make it more possible to work in between your regular schoolwork. And you can always come back here and discuss what you've been studying with me and everyone else here.
Anyway, it's all just suggestions. And I don't mean you can't or shouldn't ask questions before or instead. Just an option.
Mycroft, I certainly second the suggestion that you take any opportunity to study Philosophy. I majored in it at university, and if nothing else the critical analysis skills that you develop are fantastically useful in everything you do. It's not just the ideas that you study, but also how to rip apart an argument to understand its core concepts, and to then put together a better one.
While Philosphy has always had an 'ivory tower' image, I found it immensely practical. When I started first year, we began by looking at theories of punishment. It was a great place to start, because everyone has opinions on crime, sentencing, the death penalty and so on. It showed us how Philosphy is actually all about our lives, and not something reserved just for academics.
Mycroft - I'm glad the explanation was helpful, and not totally confusing.
I hope things haven't been too insane at the flat.
*hugs*
~ A from NW
Lyra, I do feel lucky to live here, and I hope that things in your country will improve as they have here. From what Lestrade has said, it's much better now than when he was my age, so things can change, even within one person's lifetime.
Amy, I think a lot of it is going over my head, too. Thank you for the link to the video. I will watch it, although probably not until tomorrow when things are more settled here.
Ro, thank you, I'm glad to hear that someone thinks it has some practical application. It seems like it should, but after what I read yesterday in the library, I really wasn't sure it did.
Hello, RR. I would not at all mind forgetting the Wikipedia article.
According to deontology an action is wrong because it follows a rule that says it is wrong
Does it ever address where the rules in question come from? I understand that sometimes they might come from various religions, but not where they might come from otherwise, except maybe from laws. Or is this just theory without that kind of attachment to the real world?
a third school of thought that doubts that this is a meaningful distinction at all.
Why? Because the rules that people are supposed to follow should produce good outcomes anyway?
This will go on your whole life, if you care about right and wrong in a serious way.
That's what A from NW said about Buddhism, too, that the point is to keep trying and keep improving.
There is a critical thinking class at Harrow, which isn't quite the same as philosophy, but I think its aims are similar. I can't take it until I'm older though. I will look into some of the resources you mentioned in the meantime. Thank you.
Mycroft, I don't think that Wikipedia article is very good. (Wikipedia is very hit and miss.)
(Side note: I'm working from my own understanding of these concepts, and my philosophical training, such as it is, is by way of political philosophy and a great deal of self-education, so if someone thinks I'm wrong in my understanding, please speak up!)
Does it ever address where the rules in question come from?
Aha! You have put your finger on one of the main problems for deontology--how we know which acts are wrong? The reasoning will vary with the particular deontological theory.
As you correctly point out, religious deontological systems put that off onto God (if God forbids it, you would be morally Wrong to do it even if the act produces Good). Other theories rely on claims of natural law, intuition, and/or contract theory. (That last is rules people would agree to live by--the particular theory tends to vary depending on situation the philosopher assumes people are in when they'd be asked to agree.) It's definitely a weak point in deontological ethical theories.
a third school of thought that doubts that this is a meaningful distinction at all.
Why? Because the rules that people are supposed to follow should produce good outcomes anyway?
Not precisely, although in a way it comes to that, yes. It's more that, if you push a theory in either category back far enough, you could reasonably define it as the other. That is--you could say the reason to follow a consequentialist system (to create good results) is because creating good results is Right, in and of itself, and that the results are just a way of figuring out what is right. Or you could say that the underlying reason to follow, for example, a religion, is because God knows what will bring the most good in the end.
One need not define these concepts this way--and I need not tell you that those who take the theoretical systems seriously do not!--but, if one is a lumper rather than a splitter, one could use this to argue that the distinction is bogus.
(I've rewritten that four times--if it's still incoherent let me know and I'll try to do better. But it will probably have to wait until after Shabbat, I'm sorry.)
That's what A from NW said about Buddhism, too, that the point is to keep trying and keep improving.
Yes, exactly. That is the point of almost all ethical systems, including religions. Not to be perfect, but to become more than you were; not the goal but the journey.
(I partially except Buddhism which doesn't ignore the journey, but does believe that humans can achieve enlightenment and escape the cycle of life--that might be defined as achieving perfection. But they do expect it to take several lifetimes. :))
Thank you.
You're very welcome--literally--and I hope you find something that works for you. And you can keep asking questions indefinitely--just pop a question into any current comment thread, or perhaps put up a new post, if this one gets lost in the misty past. I can't imagine John will have a problem with that, although I know you'll ask.
Oh, and Mycroft? If you feel something is over your head, ask. And KEEP ASKING. I can only speak for myself, of course, but I will never get annoyed at a real question, which is the only kind you ask. (And it will keep me from papering over my areas of ignorance with jargon.) And I can't imagine it bothering anyone else here, either.
From what Lestrade has said, it's much better now than when he was my age, so things can change, even within one person's lifetime.
I was two when homosexuality was (largely) decriminalised in England. Not that I knew then that it would matter to me ;) so yes, things can definitely change within one person's lifetime.
You would have been three, Mycroft, when the age of consent was finally equalised.
Mycroft, it really is immensely practical! It's just that from the outside it seems so impenetrable because, like - for example - medicine, to really appreciate the articles requires study and work. It's full of jargon, so you first need to define how the terms are being used before you can fully engage with a piece.
I remember once having an argument with a friend about religion vs church. I worked out in the end that he was actually agreeing with the point I was making, but he was misunderstanding me - he was equating 'church' with 'religion' (and they are not the same thing).
I also remember a first-year philosophy student quoting a famous Philosopher in our Philosophy Society gathering. Everyone else was looking at him like he was mad, because the quote had nothing to do with what we were talking about. We suddenly realised that he was not understanding how the Philosopher was defining certain terms in the quote. So we were all hearing the quote and understanding what the writer actually meant, whereas the first-year student was going with a surface reading, which, to the uninitiated, would make the quote seem appropriate.
(For example - the quote, "hell is other people", from Sartre's play "In Camera" - often quoted because people can often be really annoying and moronic, and hell to be around. What Sartre means, though, is that for the characters in play, hell is being stuck with those other characters who won't see them the way the want to be seen.)
Tl;dr - Philosphy looks scarier and more aetherial from the outside. When you get into it, it's about the things we think about all the time. Studying it helps us to hone our skills and refine our beliefs. Also, it's really, really fun!
(Another aside - you have to remember, too, that philosophers are products of their age. Kant, for instance, did not think that women were rational, reasoning creatures. When I think of Kant, I always blow a big raspberry at him in my head.)
When I think of Kant, I always blow a big raspberry at him in my head.
:D
(I can think of several reasons for doing that.)
More than a bit late to the discussion... A young man of my acquaintance got punched in the face for making a homophobic remark of some sort. His family was horrified on both counts (that he'd done it and that he'd gotten hit). I don't think he did it out of any sort of malice, just a moment of being a bit of an idiot and too much time spent in company that treated that as a normal part of social interaction (online gaming communities can be very homophobic). I don't think he'd do it again, intentionally. Should he have been hit? No, probably not. A "not cool dude, shut up" would probably have solved things.
Your situation seems to have been significantly different in both intention and history. I don't imagine you went at Mark with any intent of doing serious and or permanent damage, so I'd back you completely. (I may believe in "thou shalt not kill", but I'm pretty open to superficial damage in self/family defense when that seems to be the best option.)
I think it would be great for you to read Mark's essay and vice versa. There's no saying it would change his mind on anything, but it couldn't hurt.
Odd sidenote: The boy in the example is my lady's youngest brother. Both of his older siblings are openly gay.
Regarding philosophy: A wise man once said, "The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to that of those who think they've already found it." (Terry Pratchett, paraphrased) You have to keep asking questions. It's the only way to get closer.
Post a Comment