The Common Misconception of Bias

B

The Common Misconception of Bias
Sexism and Racism

Particularly in the past few decades, the surge in tolerance and legality of ethnicity, gender and homosexuality has lead to a rather huge shift in moral standpoints. It is generally accepted that discrimination, including ethnic bias (racism) and gender bias (sexism), is largely immoral, and the explanation as to why it is immoral is almost universally understood; because distinction in skin colour, or sexual physiology, are not valid justifications of peoples’ intrinsic value. Unfortunately, this moral standpoint has caused a huge confusion in identifying bias situations – leaving people to be ostracized when they do not deserve it.

A Lady’s False Accusation of Racism on Facebook

I had just recently saw an image (portrayed above) of a woman complaining about a certain image’s racist remarks on Facebook, despite the fact that no racism nor negative stereotype was even remotely conveyed in the image. She gave a further explanation as to why she considered it racist, suggesting that the descriptive words used (slackass etc.) were inherently targeted towards black people, but her justification was nonetheless refutable, and simply misunderstood. Although some people agreed with her, I felt compelled to send the lady, whose anonymity remains, a message explaining in detail as to why the image in question was not biased at all. While the message* (below) was directed at her comment specifically, it still relates to any situation in which people’s comments are inaccurately accused of having biased undertones – something which I see far too often. Hopefully, the following message will give some clarity in identifying discrimination.

Original Image, Accused of Racist Pretense

* Facebook Message

I saw an image which showed you accusing an image of having racist pretense, and I’m going to tell you why that post isn’t racist:

     Firstly, the post wasn’t relative to black people at all.There were no suggestions that black people are lazy/slack etc. and the adjectives were attributed to the person in the picture, who was wearing ridiculously baggy pants. The mockery was targeted towards the clothing style. Just because you associated baggy clothing and laziness to black people, it doesn’t mean that the post associates its comments to black people.

     In fact, if you claim that those adjectives were typical of a black person, then you’re not only falsely interpreting the original post, but you’re the one perpetuating the negative stereotype on black people.
Secondly, even if it did claim that black people wear ridiculously out-of-proportion clothing, it still doesn’t constitute as racism, or any bias for that matter. See the definition of racism below;

racism: Noun
“Prejudice or discrimination directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief.” – Google result, definition

Just because the concept of black people wearing baggy clothing is considered stereotypical, it doesn’t mean that black people are marginalised or discriminated against; a stereotype can have truth to it, and that exempts it from racism. If somebody said that black people predominantly live in the housing Projects, which is true, then it would be a stereotype – not racism, because the comment is based on statistical evidence and it’s not suggesting that black people live in the projects BECAUSE they’re black. It didn’t claim that people vary in intelligence/character according to their skin-colour – it didn’t even remotely portray a stereotype about anybody.

If you’re ever confronted by anything which people deem as racist, then remember the fallacy: correlation does not imply causation.

If black people are statistically more likely to live in poverty, then it’s suggesting that black people correlate with poverty. It doesn’t, however, suggest that black people are the cause of poverty. In this case, if somebody ever suggested that black people wear baggy clothing, then they’re giving a correlation between baggy clothing and black people – not a causation.

Morgan

Memorable Fragments by Heraclitus

Heraclitus and the Fragments:

 

Statue Resembling Heraclitus

 

Heraclitus

Heraclitus is one of the most renowned Greek Philosophers during the Pre-Socratic times. Although not much is known about his upbringing and general biography, he was – and still is – considered a “pioneer of wisdom”, especially throughout his own era. In Plato’s Theaetetus, Chapter I. Heraclitus is mentioned and his famous quote, “No man ever steps in the same river twice”, was employed by Socrates in an effort to understand the nature of knowledge. Yet, Heraclitus is also quite memorable for his fragments: brief sentiments about Philosophy and life in general which were written by him in Greek. The list of known fragments which Heraclitus wrote are listed below in English translations. The translated texts were extracted from classicpersuasion.org , and the site’s bibliography is referred respectively underneath the listed Fragments.

Painting of Heraclitus

Fragments

 

Fragment from Heraclitus

 

Below are some memorable Fragments written by Heraclitus, translated from Greek to English by G.T.W Patrick.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

     “Into the same river you could not step twice,  for other waters are flowing.”

              – Heraclitus, Alleg. Hom. 24.

“War is the father and king of all, and has produced some as gods and some as men, and has made some slaves and some free.”

– Hippolytus, Ref. haer. ix. 9.

“Recognizing oneself and being of a sound mind are for all men.“

              – Fragment B116

“Although the Law of Reason is common, the majority of people live as though they had an understanding of their own.”

– Sextus Emp. adv. Math. vii. 133.

“It is hard to contend against passion, for whatever it craves it buys with its life.”

– Iamblichus, Protrept. p. 140, Arcer.

“Dogs, also, bark at what they do not know.”

– Plutarch, An seni sit ger. resp. vii. p. 787.

“Of all whose words I have heard, no one attains to this, to know that wisdom is apart from all.”

-Stobaeus Floril. iii. 81.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

References

From The Fragments of the Work of Heraclitus of Ephesus on Nature, translated from the Greek text of Bywater by G.T.W. Patrick, Baltimore: N. Murray, 1889. This was originally Patrick’s doctoral thesis at Johns Hopkins University, 1888. A note states that this 1889 edition was reprinted from the American Journal of Psychology, 1888.

Rationalising the Ethics of Justice: Theft and Murder

Justice is Blind

A common question which is asked by the general public when it comes to Ethics is; “How do our Laws really determine what’s right and wrong?”

Such a question is the quintessential starting point for most Ethical debates, and it’s quite alarming as to how many people do not understand why the most essential ethical codes are in place today. Two of the most essential ethical codes which are governed in laws are theft and murder. While being accepted as insidious acts of immorality, most people during their youth years question as to why they are so unjust. The points made here will hopefully establish why these two common acts of injustice are implemented in the laws today. The distinction between morality and Ethics is established below as well in a concise, informative manner.

While the words “Moral” and Ethics” both derive from the Greek word “Mos”, meaning custom, the two are different in terms of Philosophy. Ethics, in terms of Philosophy, are the codes of what we personally believe in right and wrong. Ethics are the thoughts. Morality, however, is that which is objectively right, and it determines that which is objectively wrong. Morality is the ACT of right, while Ethics are the thoughts of right. That’s why the laws which the Government implements are considered ethical codes, because they’re laws which the people of the government think govern justice.

If one were to take candy from a baby, then they’re using force to retrieve something which was originally in rightful ownership of the baby. The baby earned the candy through non authoritarian methods, and it was unlawfully taken by somebody who exploited the governing system in exchange for nothing. In the movie, “The Gods must be Crazy”, the narrator suggests that ownership is something which is determined by the Governing system of justice in order to maintain a sense of equality and freedom for people. For example, to “own” a mars bar legally you have to exchange something for it. This trading of ownership is a fundamental part of western society, as it tries to equalize the privileges among society. If you take a candy from the baby, then the baby has lost ownership of an object and gained nothing else in ownership. The only case in which this is ethical is if the baby warranted for you to have the candy in exchange for nothing, otherwise the baby has essentially lost something and the scales of equality are skewed.

The case of murder being immoral can be rationally justified as well, similarly to theft. If you murder somebody with a gun, for example, then you’re using certain mechanics to propel a certain object into the victim’s body, with the intention of killing them. When the trajectory hits the brain, in this case, and the victim has been killed, then you have essentially exploited the laws of physics in order to make somebody lose their right of life without their consent. When somebody loses their life, they lose every possible freedom that they originally had: they lose the freedom of buying an object, like a croissant, and eating the croissant. Once the victim loses consciousness, they have lost the capability of doing, or even experiencing, anything. Upon murdering somebody, you have essentially destroyed every freedom of the victim in order for your own purpose (whether it’s for monetary gain or just pleasure). Unlike theft, where you take away the freedom of a baby to enjoy a candy, you literally take away every possible freedom, and every memory, from that person. That’s why murder is widely considered as the most immoral, revolting act against equality and freedom that anybody can commit.

God and Morality

There is a question proposed by a lot of people in regards to God’s morality, and it is often left unanswered by some. Often as a result of a personal or national tragedy occurs, people are left asking the notorious question; “How could God let this happen?”

For the sake of argument the existence of God is unquestionable  and assuming that the God is naturally supposed to radiate justice, then the question is begged by yet another question; how is it the God’s responsibility for tragic events which are a result of human (or perhaps natural) manipulation and alteration?

The God merely created the Universe, its components and laws of nature, and it shouldn’t be his responsibility when you exploit the laws of nature and the Universe’s components in order to injure somebody. For example, if I shoot somebody, then I am using certain mechanics with a device with my own intention of sending an object at rapid speeds to penetrate somebody else; why should it be the God’s fault if I were the one who solely committed the act?

Just because God created an environment in which beings die it doesn’t mean that he is at fault, as the Universe’s components and laws, particularly our manipulation of them, are what result in injuries and deaths (two of the most atrocious acts of immorality). Besides, you’re suggesting that divine beings have the capability of seeing human morality. Perhaps they can understand ethical codes, but the objective sense of morality which humans, not animals, possess is basically synthetic.

Is God Responsible for the World’s Turmoil?

A proportionally popular response to the question of God’s morality is particularly expressed by theists and faithful, and that is; “God works in mysterious ways.”
Such a response is usually expressed in good spirit, and, in some respects, it does have some validity. Mankind’s grasp or morality, a supposedly objective and external truth, goes only as far as our ethical perspective, and our ethical standpoint is often subjected to cultural/individual relativism. For example, somebody in Western society may have strong beliefs against physical assault – so much so that any form of physical assault is subhuman and never justified unless used as a form of defense. However, in country’s riddled with religious extremism and political madness, people may find that physical assault is perfectly justifiable in seemingly unjustifiable situations. Perhaps God only knows that which is truly moral, as opposed to ethical, and the failure to grasp this leads us to beg that notorious question.

Or, contrary to trying to rationalise the madness that God apparently allows in this world, perhaps God is immoral. After all, God in essence is defined as the creator of the Universe, and to create something does not necessarily mean that one respects their moral obligation to keep their creation intact. Maybe the gift of life itself is a privilege so profound that God’s lack of moral sense of forgivable.

The Roots of Philosophy and their Importance

The Roots of Philosophy

The creation, and eventual expansion, of Christianity throughout Western culture was gradual as not only was it a radical, more dogmatic, change from Paganism and Pre-Socratic philosophy, but because it was considered as an insult to the identity of God.  Early Christianity spoke of the Trinity of God – in divine, in spirit, and in flesh. The latter, that is – God in flesh, is deeply offensive to the traditional Philosophies which were eventually usurped by Christianity itself; even in recent years, the Holy trinity, while not as radical today, poses as an insult to Islamists and other Religious people.

But what was the purpose of Christianity, or any philosophy for that matter? Its goal was that of science is today – to discover truth, knowledge and wisdom. Christianity served as no substitute for empirical devices of searching for truth, instead it served as the device for discovering truth in itself. With this, people developed the theory of Creationism; such a theory was partially produced from the classic story of Adam and Eve.

Although many would agree that, with the predisposed knowledge available today, the story of Adam and Eve is a metaphorical tale of redemption, origin and identity; however, the ancients had little knowledge at their disposal, and creationism not only seemed  plausible – but infallible. This is not to say that, despite its inherent popularity, Creationism is impossible; instead, Creationism, like any Philosophy which is not entirely dismissed, remains as a possibility of truth. But in comparison to Evolution, its prime competitor, Creationism would seem as an unlikely choice even to radical sceptics, as the former has exponentially more empirical evidence (such as the comparison between Apes and humans, and fossilised evidence), and subsequently it seems more rational to resume that Creationism is unlikely at the very least.

Creationism, like its fellow ancient philosophies, was founded on the structure of little predisposed knowledge – like a house with sticks for supports. However, evolution, a theory not only scientific but philosophical, was founded on the seemingly intuitive knowledge which science and  empiricism promoted. In this case, the structure of evolution was supported by sturdy pillars.

Creationism, in some sense, is a quintessential example of the philosophical journey which the ancients, and their descendants, traveled.

With little understanding of the Universe, and no structural system for discovering external or historical truths, our predecessors were left to build their society with their bare hands. While this details the shortcomings of our ascendants and their philosophies, such as Creationism, it also gives unseen value to their self-reliant ingenuity. Without these metaphysical, outworn creeds, Evolution would not have been, nor would science and post-modern philosophy be as developed as it is today. From the desolate boiling pot of uncertainty and speculation grows the tree of unforeseen knowledge – a blessing which grew from one seed, a tiny speck in the ground.
While most radical philosophy delivered by the ancients and enlightened, are considered  to be creeds outworn, the philosophies in question still have intrinsic value to it – more so than what we consider grateful. For a seed, however small and insignificant to the naked eye, is still the hallmark, the blueprints, for a greater being to come – and, in this case, evolution grew.

Atheist and Theist Mistakes in Argument

Common Atheist and Theist mistakes in argument

1.

I’ll start by saying that, in controversial argument of atheism vs theism, there is no definitively correct answer – so long as the opposition remains unproved, then the theory is valid, however speculative it may be. Causing a scene and claiming that your opposition is just “wrong” or “retarded” doesn’t support your argument, it just further permeates a negative stereotype of your own beliefs.

2.

Theism is not a religion, and religions are not necessarily theism. Religion usually constitutes not only the belief of God, but sacred texts, rules and ethical codes, ontology, cosmology, epistemology and many other beliefs. Just because Christianity or Islam believes in a God, it does not mean that theism is essentially the same. IIf an atheist is to argue against theism, then they are to argue the belief (that is that God exists), and not Christianity, creationism, or Mormonism etc.

3. (and the most important)

Fallacies are abundant in both the arguments regarding theism and atheism. The primary fallacy in this case is known as the straw man fallacy. The straw man fallacy is when the opposition (often intentionally) misinterprets one’s argument, and rearranges it so that it sounds absurd, yet vastly inaccurate. A prime example given which is in this Thread is by the following gentleman;

“Believing in a God is just the same as believing that a cheese sandwhich made the Universe.”

As you can see, the person has employed a comparison of believing in a God, a founder of the Universe and divine being, to that of a Cheese sandwhich being the sole architect of the Universe. This attempt at reductio ad absurdum, while being hilarious, is a straw-man fallacy, as it gives a blatantly ridiculous comparison in the hopes of drawing people to believe their argument based on social convention. Clearly, it is insane in our society to believe that a cheese sandwhich created the Universe, therefore it must be insane for one to believe in a God, right? No, this is not true. There is a lot more to the belief of God than this cruel attempt of sophism, such as sacred texts, reports and general philosophical reasoning.

4.

Atheism is not supported by science.
Many atheists, and people in general regardless of their beliefs, somehow believe that the field of science gives evidence supporting atheism or, in extreme cases, “proves” it to be true. However, science doesn’t support atheism at all. One might say “but after all of this space exploration, there has been no sighting of God – so there musn’t be a God?”
This is certainly a good question, however many theists believe that God does not even reside on the natural Universe, but instead in the divine realm (i.e. Heaven). If God supposedly resides in the divine realm, then there is no possible way for one to employ empiricism (the fundamental ploy of evidence in science) to support their atheist beliefs. An atheist could argue, however, how absurd it is to believe that a God resides in the divine realm, as one could possibly not evaluate any hard, legitimate evidence supporting the belief.
Personally, I believe the discoveries made by science does the contrary to supporting atheism, for if one looks at how intricate the Universe and even their own body can be, then they might become very compelled in believing that some divine being is behind it all.
As for the Big Bang theory, many theists could argue that a God was the force behind the initial “big bang”.

5.

“Atheism is its own religion.”
Atheism is a belief, not a religion. A religion, as said earlier in my second (2) point, constitutes for a way of life, codes of ethics and cosmology. If one claims to be an atheist, then they merely believe that a God does not exist, but it does not constitute for a particular way of life or how the Universe works. Just because an atheist may support science and empiricism, it does not mean the two are relevant to each other (see point 4 for more details regarding science and atheism).
Atheism is not a set of beliefs – it is one belief.

There are variations of atheism, and many atheists strongly condone and follow scientific and empirical foundations; but this does not mean that atheism, by default, also takes into consideration these foundations as a way of life.
Your argument is just a matter of semantics. Consider your argument as something which is like the claim that we are living in the Matrix; we may be living in the Matrix, this may not even be the “real” reality, but it does not matter for we still perceive something external, and we can still gather knowledge of the external “something’s” truths, and we still refer to it as “reality”, whether or not it is “real” by somebody’s standards is entirely irrelevant.

In your (the atheist’s) case, you’re claiming that atheism is a religion, but it’s just a matter of semantics. It doesn’t matter what your interpretation of the words “atheism” or “religion” are, because the former is not, by definition and current meaning, categorised into the former. If you’re claiming that atheism does, by default, carry a system and way of life, and cosmology. etc. then you’re wrong. It’s similar to a cause and effect fallacy – you seem to think that just because atheists are more than often empiricists, that means atheism is empiricism.

Some people speculate that atheism is a LACK of a belief. This has some truth to it, but it still co-exists with the fact that atheism is a belief. Atheism is, indeed, the lack of a belief in God; but the lack of a belief in God is, by all means, just the belief that no God exists. It’s a silly matter of semantics to really argue this point, as the only factor between this argument is how to express it properly – which is redundant considering that both presentations are equally unbiased and respectively right.

6. (and final point)

Atheism does not automatically mean one is safe from attack. Many people mistake atheism as a belief in which they hold a skeptical stance, and subsequently are resistant to a lot, if not every, attack supporting theism. However, if one were to take a more skeptical, yet appropriate stance, then agnostic atheism (or just agnosticism) is the most preferable path. An agnostic person essentially believes that a God most probably does not exist, considering the substantial lack of evidence, but the possibility of theism as being truthful remains so long as more evidence is presented. Agnosticism is a very skeptical stance, and it’s more than often the most rational stance in the great debate between atheism vs theism. Unfortunately, many people aren’t aware of this belief.

Other Philosophers on Ethics

Other Philosophers on Ethics

AJ Ayer, a leading 20^th Century philosopher, believed that moral statements are technically meaningless; but they involve emotive and prescriptive element. Essentially, Ayer believed that, because morality has no relation to science, it has no purpose. Charles Stevenson claimed, however, that it is possible to give reason for our likes and dislikes, rather than intuition or emotional desire.

Moore believed that the good was not something that could be defined or reduced to naturalistic categories (Hume): Naturalistic fallacy. Moore’s approach to ethics was a very intellectual and intuitive approach. He believed that, quite simply, man knows what is good through intuition. Intuition is both a rationalist and emotive decision-making about making facts about the world, such as morality. The philosopher Shaftesbury believed the faculty by which we naturally discern the difference between good and evil (known as moral sense). Moral sense is best described briefly as the aggregation of both intuitive morality and naturalistic ethics.

The idea of intuitive morality is that you naturally know the difference between good and evil, without being able to distinguish the knowledge as either intellectual or emotive. A prime example of intuitive morality is the case of Nazi Germany and their philosophy, for it is considered naturally wrong to kill somebody entirely for their race.

Adam Smith believed that the principle of moral sentiment is essentially based on sympathy (sympathy being the innate human desire to identify with the emotions of others). Smith also claimed that if man had a lack of sympathy for other human beings then there is something wrong with you, and you are regarded as immoral. This is an emotive approach, to some extent, as sympathy is naturally considered as a human emotion.

 Levinas on Ethics as ‘first philosophy’

Levinas’ entire method of thinking about the origins and nature of ethics is so very different from the majority of analytic moral philosophy. The roots of moral imperative lie prior to rationality, language, emotions, intuitions, and even the constitution of the self. Ethics, according to Levinas, is grounded in the primordial pre-conscious call of the ‘other’, who calls me into my responsibility for his/her welfare. The ethical encounter with the other is the touchstone of the subject’s freedom.

Hume’s Critique of Rationalist Ethics

Hume’s critique of Rationalist ethics

Hume’s empiricism ruled out bot reason and Religion in ethics, particularly because of their intangible matter. Instead, Hume claimed that ethics and moral decisions is distinguished by emotional consideration. Hume also believed that, because reason is ruled out of his rationalist ethical approach, facts and logic cannot determine ethics and moral value. Hume’s absolute distinction of ethics is between what is, and what ought to be. In fact, Hume when so far as to establish a logical fallacy known as “Hume’s Guillotine”.

“’Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the world to the scratching of my   finger. ‘Tis not contrary to reason for me to choose morality…”

-Hume

A reason as to why Hume claimed that reason cannot be at the basis of moral life is that ideas and facts alone lack any motivating power. Hume’s argument is a persuasive, albeit realist, approach to ethics; initially, it seems logical that moral actions are based on analysis of what action grants greater emotional ease, or lesser emotional pain, as a consequence of the situation. Yet, using a Utilitarian approach to determining morality is as though man reasons to conclude which action takes the least toll on emotional pain, or greatest measure of natural generosity.

Unfortunately, Hume does not provide us with any reason for his confidence in the ultimate triumph of benevolence over egotism (and malevolence). It is though Hume assumes that man, even a sceptic, must trust his belief of genuine human kindness with certainly more trust than man’s self-control and morality.

As well as this issue, it is observed that man is not entirely moral or nice, and instead often taking on the role of benevolence for our own desire of greed and selfish nature. Hume has a rather optimist trust that man desires ethical code more so than their own selfish benefit. Hume’s belief is a rather emotional determinist approach to ethics; for, in the midst of making a moral decision, intuitive emotions and desires arise to determine our moral decisions – leaving rationality to swim in the depths of our mind, unable to grasp for air. The Iliad displays quite an accurate depiction of a case of emotional determinism, in which Achilles abandons what is rationally thought of an ethical decision, for his emotional desire.

Of the extracted texts from A Treatise of Human Nature, Hume introduces his premise of argument that morality is emotive by acknowledging that Mainstream Western Philosophy regards reason more so than passion, and how the two are considered polar opposites of each other. Jeff McMahan, however, considers that moral action is interpreted by the brain’s cognitive function and intuition, rather than being entirely based on rationality or emotive responses.

Hume establishes that passion is due for consideration in ethical decision making, and notes that he plans on elaborating on his premise by proving that “reason alone can never be a motive to an action,” and, “that it can never oppose passion in the direction of will…” (1) Hume founds the assumption that ethical thinking is not adequate with reason, but rather passion, by observing that reason is the analysis, and discovery, of truth. Hume’s foundation investigates ethics in a rather subjective, expressionist, perspective – as opposed to objective ethics.

Because of this subjective approach, Hume continues by stating that false judgement by reason draws “no manner of guilt” as a consequence when an immoral action, based on false judgment, should subsequently bare emotional pain. For example, if one were to commit an immoral action, such as thievery, the consequence may be a feeling of guilt, and their guilt impacts on their decision on whether or not to turn themselves in for committing the crime. In this respect, emotion naturally evokes the sense of distinguishing morality from immorality.

Hume also points out that reason can, however, impact on moral decision making, but only when it “excites a passion by informing us of the existence of something which is a proper object of it; or when it discovers the connection of causes and effects.”

In the previous hypothetical situation presented, the thief may use reasoning in order to conclude whether or not he/her should hand themselves’ in, but their reasoning is due to the guilt being a result, or “effect”, of their action, leaving them with the impression that thievery is essentially wrong.

Jeff McMahan, in Moral Intuition, argues the validity of intuition as a factor for morality, and whether intuition consists of any cognitive, rational or emotive elements. Throughout the extracted reading, McMahan focuses on two primary theories concerning the nature behind intuitive ethics; the first being a metaphysical, occult approach, while the second theory suggests that “intuitions are indubitable.”

The latter theory regarding intuition’s veridicality is almost immediately dismissed by McMahan as he establishes that intuitive nature can, and is often, doubted through reasoning, as well as varying between cultural and religious background. Peter Singer, a moral Philosopher, is quoted in the extracted texts, suggesting “that all the particular moral judgments we intuitively make are likely to derive from discarded religious systems.” Singer’s statement further validates McMahan’s thesis that intuition is a cognitive function which is very, if not entirely, dependent on the individual’s cultural & religious background. McMahan’s approach to ethics is similar to Hume’s in the respect that both theses regard ethics as being relativist.

As well as this, McMahan takes into consideration man’s general intuitive thought, particularly referred to as common sense. McMahan notes that our common sense of nature and the external world has often led us to believe falsehood. In the chapter “Theory Unchecked by Intuition” (97), the example of science overruling our original perception of the world is founded. In this comparison between science (specifically physics) and instincts, McMahan acknowledges that man regards science as more reliable than their instinctive counterpart, as the studies in science are much more concise and explanatory, as well as coexisting with the laws of nature.

Personally, I consider morality to be quite significantly dependent on all three philosophical factors – emotive, intuitive and rational. It seems rational to assume that intuition often determines whether or not something is immoral, but only in the confines of a brief moment in making a moral decision. Like McMahan established, however, intuition is relative between cultures and different religious backgrounds. Yet it is in man’s nature to rationally consider the implications of a decision based on whether or not it is ethical. As previously suggested by Hume in the hypothetical situation of the thief, ethical reasoning could potentially be due to our emotional state at the time.

If I were to “pick a side”, then I would most certainly determine my moral principles not by my instinct, or passion, but rather from reasoning. For, although cultural relativism is abundant, I do believe that an objective critique of morality can be established through rationality and logic. It is entirely possible to allow reason, passion and intuition coincide with each other in meta-ethics. Through reason, one can establish that passion generally determines moral decisions, particularly in the spur of the moment, and our intuition understands that, through experience, which emotions are negative and which emotions are positive. So, from this correlation of three different philosophical standpoints, one can quite easily understand where they fit into place.

 

The Cave Allegory (Preface)

Preface: The Cave Allegory

Update: 22/02/2013

Plato, one of the many philosophers to which I personally aspire, written a great allegory which is not only prophetically relevant to today’s problematic society, but it also delivers an explanation as to what I aspire to achieving with philosophy. The allegory follows a tale which takes place in a cave, where a woman, or variably a man, is bound by chains and consequently only capable of facing a wall. Behind her a fire emblazons the walls, and before her the silhouette of figures, such as horses as soldiers, are being cast onto the cave’s wall. It is naturally understood in this tale that the silhouettes are being cast by people behind the imprisoned lady, yet her unknowing of this leads us to believe that the men behind her are tricksters, or otherwise called “Sophists”.

After being imprisoned for such a long time, the woman gradually believes that the shadows are not representations of objects, but rather actual beings; the lady begins to interpret the shadows as reality in its entirety. Eventually, after much time in imprisonment, the woman breaks free from her chains, and runs outside of the cave hurriedly. Upon exiting the cave, the external world’s light leaves her incapacitated, but only temporarily. Once her eyes affix to the lighting conditions, her very foundation of so-called reality is shattered as the sight of towering trees, the distant sound of whistling birds, and the heavenly aroma of nearby flowers immediately usurp the throne for her new conception of reality. In this new light of discovery, she returns to the cave to tell her fabled silhouettes of the world beyond the cave’s confine. Yet, upon re-entering the cave, the light dissipates and she is left in darkness, as her eyes are no longer affixed to the cave’s dark atmosphere. Meanwhile, the tricksters, or Sophists, who charmed her into believing a false truth, are quick to control her and bring her under the shackles of a false, synthetic reality once again; however, in re-imprisonment, her eyes remain closed and the memories of the external, legitimate reality flood her eyes, giving her a sense of clarity which no imprisonment could exterminate.

Do we achieve Independent thought?

From this tale, Plato identifies three significant types of people: The manipulators (or Sophists), the manipulated, and, most importantly, the bearers of truth. This allegory, told in the Republic, bears an almost scary relevance to contemporary politics and social agenda.The Sophists in modern terms are regarded as lying Politicians and, more prominently, social Media. Politicians and social Media are notorious for manipulating the general population into voting, or buying a desirable product, or even marginalising socially acceptable opinions of events. Politicians and the Media are undoubtedly quintessential examples of those depicted as tricksters in Plato’s allegory. A prime example of sophism would be a case of product advertisement; consider an advertising agency promoting anti-perspiration products as being able to attract the opposite sex with unfounded success, when any sense of rationality dictates that this is clearly not the case.

The allegory presents a second type of person who, out of a lack of knowledge, foolishly believes the rhetorical endorsements of sophists. This category of gullible people are considered as the general population of people; those without an education, and those without any interest in intellectual integrity or truth. As the most common of all three categories, these people are the reason as to why sophism is so financially successful. The third type of person in this allegory is the person who understands that spraying deodorant over them clearly does not make the opposite sex racing to have sex with them. Instead, this type of person has enough reason and clarity to only justify buying such a product for its legitimate purpose – anti perspiration.

Plato regards this third, unique class of people as philosophers, or at least those capable of being professional philosophers. Surprisingly, this category is rather small in comparison to the other two. Philosophy, as well as mathematics and logic (both formal and informal), excel in educating people about rationality and resisting the urge to succumb to being manipulated. Unfortunately the Philosopher is more than often prone to being ostracised by general society, as the sophists deliberately demote the mentality of the Philosopher in order to protect their product endorsements and political positions. It’s a rather vicious circle, but anybody with enough intellectual integrity to question the authenticity of their favourite political party or their most favourable news station, philosopher or not, is a man who deserves the clarity which was offered to the woman in Plato’s cave allegory.

    Plato, pointing up in the sky; indicating his cosmological beliefs

In this respect, I (hopefully with some modesty) regard myself as the third class of person. My profession is Philosophy, and I am often in the situation in which I am being ridiculed by society. Yet, I find it noble that I have not succumbed to buying a can of Coca Cola entirely for the sake of altering my identity to what was depicted on their Television advertisement, or applauding a political party because of my parents adamant worship of the party in question. With this being said, I hope that I retain my modesty in saying that I don’t regard myself as some self-proclaimed Doomsday prophet who claims to have ‘seen the light’, or that I excel everybody else in terms of intelligence.