Human beings are animals. If life evolved then we are related to some degree not only to primates but to all animals at some point in the gigantic evolutionary family tree. The closer we are genetically to our ancestors the more we seem to care. As a matter of fact the more directly linked to any situation that carries moral weight the more we appear to care. The more we can distance ourselves from others the less obligation we feel to them. This is a typical human characteristic. There are exceptions when it comes to morality however, since we have sufficient evidence to conclude that certain moral traits are obviously lacking or overruled in some individuals. We cannot force others into a certain disposition however we can influence the ignorant to realize certain things.
If we feel moral obligations to one another as humans then is it absurd to think that it is possible that we feel moral obligations to other animals? After all, the evidence suggests we do, that is, that the morality we recognize in some degree is not shed between species. There are people who feel compelled to treat other animals with respect and to not cause harm to other living creatures. It is because of this attitude about life that I would suggest morality isn't an exclusive human function. Further evidence perhaps could be the circumstances we observe in other animal behavior such as care for young; traits humans share. Still, others would argue that free will changes the dichotomy between human morality and other animal morality. Provisionally, free will has seemed illusory therefore I don't suspect it holds any weight on the arguments based in morality.
Evolution progresses in degrees, that is, changes occur at every level and that determining distinctness becomes difficult. It is not to say distinctions are irrelevant or impossible rather they serve as a marker that fulfills some intuitive response to categorizing the world that humans seem to require. Yet, this categorization needn't be perfect it simply needs to be good enough for the time being. Established categories are often changed and updated according to the available evidence we have concerning particular groups of things. It is an ongoing process but it demands a provisional understanding of life. Life is changing, that is a consequence to motion/time. Morality is no different. There is no fundamental law of morality. No rule that can be stated which will last forever. Morality is simply a product of what an individual feels toward the greater community of beings and those feelings can be alter, removed, or added upon.
If one feels compelled to recognize other animal rights based on some moral understanding then it is a product of their disposition. If someone feels compelled to base their social decisions on causing harm to others then the morality of the situations necessarily includes other animals which feel pain. If one recognizes no moral obligations then they are at odds with the majority in that most people feel some moral obligations, however varying. It may be unfair to that individual that has no moral constraints but it is likely that they will be limited in their actions so far is necessary to maintain a reasonable degree of morality. All social morality is composed of is an average of the perceived moral obligations of the group.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Objectivity Renders Subjectivity Meaningless
I think that most people conceptualize objectivity and subjectivity as separate and opposing paradigms of reality. Ironically, I can't know what the experience is concerning the definition about what is objective nor what is subjective according to each person's views. Indeed, each TRUE definition for any word first discovered and coined by some unknown person usually is certainly unknowable, however we have probable suggestions logged in dictionaries that generally work as long as we don't get into debates upon the semantics. Each definition gives what is supposed to be a sufficient account of the reality that is supposed to be explained by the concept. Using words, I will try to explain this. So, here goes nothin'
At the very least subjectivity would have to be a component of an objective universe, that is, subjectivity necessarily derives from objectivity. The whole conception of "the problem of subjectivity occurring in an objective universe" is actually a misinformed perception of logical constructs. The two ideas could never exist as opposing forces because subjectivity at a certain level is contradictory such that when it is adjusted to adhere to logical constraints it actually BECOMES objectivity. Consciousness seems to fool our perceptions about subjectivity in that we recognize there are other "perspectives" from which reality is viewed so much so that we literally believe what we are seeing. Objectivity destroys subjectivity and renders it meaningless.
For example: If a person, or rather, a being that is so said to be "conscious" should recognize the concept of a pen it should be said that 1. a pen is by definition unknowable, rather a probable account of the reality anticipated and understood by what a pen is/can potentially be by the entity that so coined the term. 2. a pen needn't reflect the actual reality of the pen simply because the reality is knowable, hence to serve its purpose, that is the account of reality that is the definition, it must justifiably account for a sufficient amount of the recognizable traits in what would be considered to be a pen in the first occurrence.
Reality concerning the pen usually happens in this manner. The thing that so scribes and carries the characteristics of what is a pen is labeled a ''pen''. The reality is that there is much more to the pen that we don't yet realize and will never actually be capable of understanding. The pen exists in reality as an unknowable truth yet we aim to describe it as best as we can in our limited conceptualizations. Furthermore, each person views, tastes, touches, etc. and understands the pen independently. However, independence isn't sufficient for multiple accounts of the reality of the pen. The pen still is based in reality and it shall ALWAYS be viewed through a skewed glass.
We can never be certain what a "pen" actually is nor can we be realize what other people actually perceive to be a "pen". Yet, we can construct a model of a pen based on probability which suggests that a "pen" is likely this or that such that we agree on certain qualifications and expectations of what it means to be a "pen". This model, which is a functional model, allows people a "good enough" interpretation of what a "pen" is to follow concepts that include the pen as a property of reality. "Good enough" is a bar that is adjustable and will rise and fall with the progression of humanity. Our conceptualization of the "pen" will be adjusted according to what we come to understand about reality. Our entire understanding of the pen is provisional.
Eventually, we will minimize the uncertainty that surrounds the nature of things, that is, we will gain a better understanding of what a "pen" is. So long as these processes are based in an objective universe then they can by implication be understood according to the laws associated with science. Basically, what is subjective to you is really a lost thought brought into the center of your understanding. This "lost thought" can eventually be reclaimed by outside interpretations and logged in scientific inquiry. It is possible to understand at a fundamental level what you experience to a degree according to science such that subjectivity is rendered meaningless.
At the very least subjectivity would have to be a component of an objective universe, that is, subjectivity necessarily derives from objectivity. The whole conception of "the problem of subjectivity occurring in an objective universe" is actually a misinformed perception of logical constructs. The two ideas could never exist as opposing forces because subjectivity at a certain level is contradictory such that when it is adjusted to adhere to logical constraints it actually BECOMES objectivity. Consciousness seems to fool our perceptions about subjectivity in that we recognize there are other "perspectives" from which reality is viewed so much so that we literally believe what we are seeing. Objectivity destroys subjectivity and renders it meaningless.
For example: If a person, or rather, a being that is so said to be "conscious" should recognize the concept of a pen it should be said that 1. a pen is by definition unknowable, rather a probable account of the reality anticipated and understood by what a pen is/can potentially be by the entity that so coined the term. 2. a pen needn't reflect the actual reality of the pen simply because the reality is knowable, hence to serve its purpose, that is the account of reality that is the definition, it must justifiably account for a sufficient amount of the recognizable traits in what would be considered to be a pen in the first occurrence.
Reality concerning the pen usually happens in this manner. The thing that so scribes and carries the characteristics of what is a pen is labeled a ''pen''. The reality is that there is much more to the pen that we don't yet realize and will never actually be capable of understanding. The pen exists in reality as an unknowable truth yet we aim to describe it as best as we can in our limited conceptualizations. Furthermore, each person views, tastes, touches, etc. and understands the pen independently. However, independence isn't sufficient for multiple accounts of the reality of the pen. The pen still is based in reality and it shall ALWAYS be viewed through a skewed glass.
We can never be certain what a "pen" actually is nor can we be realize what other people actually perceive to be a "pen". Yet, we can construct a model of a pen based on probability which suggests that a "pen" is likely this or that such that we agree on certain qualifications and expectations of what it means to be a "pen". This model, which is a functional model, allows people a "good enough" interpretation of what a "pen" is to follow concepts that include the pen as a property of reality. "Good enough" is a bar that is adjustable and will rise and fall with the progression of humanity. Our conceptualization of the "pen" will be adjusted according to what we come to understand about reality. Our entire understanding of the pen is provisional.
Eventually, we will minimize the uncertainty that surrounds the nature of things, that is, we will gain a better understanding of what a "pen" is. So long as these processes are based in an objective universe then they can by implication be understood according to the laws associated with science. Basically, what is subjective to you is really a lost thought brought into the center of your understanding. This "lost thought" can eventually be reclaimed by outside interpretations and logged in scientific inquiry. It is possible to understand at a fundamental level what you experience to a degree according to science such that subjectivity is rendered meaningless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
