ARE WE REALLY FREE?! (PART 1)

WHAT IS MEANT TO BE 'FREE' AND 'DETERMINED'?

The problem of free-will and determinism is discussed within Philosophy, by academic theologians, religious believers and non-believers. The debate as to whether we are free beings is intense. Interestingly it also attracts the attention of scientists. 

When we speak of being free, what we mean is that we have a choice as to how we behave. We have the freedom to take action A instead of action B. We are responsible for whatever actions we take, in other words, we have 'free will'. When people speak of determinism, they mean that all events are subject to scientific laws and are theoretically predictable. In other words, we can predict what events will take place. It thus has the implication that we are actually being driven by impersonal laws, that even if we experience ourselves as free, this an illusion. All actions are 'determined'.

Before we discuss it further, it is important to survey what key thinkers had to say about free-will and determinism.

BACKGROUND TO THE DEBATE

Democritus (c.460-370 BCE)

The first thinker to consider the issue was the Greek philosopher Democritus (5th Century B.C.E). He was an 'atomist', meaning he believed that everything consisted of atoms in space. Objects exist independent of our observation of them, and in theory it was possible to predict how each and everything would behave. He also argued that atoms are eternal, and that they grouped together to form more complex objects which were constantly changing. The implication of such a view is that you have a material world, which is eternal, in which all that is experienced is a collection of atoms. The universe is seen as a single, determined mechanism, operating on impersonal laws, and that we to are temporary, composite creatures. This obviously creates problems for human freedom and purpose, for what purpose do we have if our behaviour is driven by impersonal predictable laws?

St Augustine of Hippo (354-430)

This problem was given religious significance by St Augustine, with regards to the traditional problem of evil, that we cannot accept the claims that evil exists, God is all good, and God is all powerful; accepting two claims negates the third. Augustine believed that evil was a sign that humankind had fallen, but God gives us free-will and the responsibility for our actions. However, Augustine maintained that God is also all-knowing, so he argued for predestination, that God knows who is to be saved and who is to be damned, and we cannot change this. If we accept this, are we really free? Should we be held accountable for our actions?  

Isaac Newton (1643-1727)

With the rise of science from the 17th century onwards, Newtonian physics suggested that everything in the world may be described by laws which operate with mathematical precision. If we knew what the laws of nature were, it would be possible to predict exactly what would happen in each and every situation.  Thus, everything is determined. Science thus assumes that everything has a causes, or a large number of causes, which determines the outcome. This has implications on the freedom and determinism debate, and an unexplained event is not put down to divine intervention, rather an unexplained law. The issue is, if science is able to explain everything in terms of causes, is there any room for freedom and choice? 

LEIBNIZ- GOD'S CHOSEN WORLD

Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716)

The philosopher and mathematician Gottfried Leibniz saw God as an eternal and infinite mind who saw and determined everything in the world and who had chosen to make the world exactly as it is. A change in any one individual thing in the world would require that everything else be changed as well. There maybe a number of possible worlds, in which things are different, but in this world everything has to be as it is. Since he believed that it would have been possible for God to have created any sort of world, since God chose to create this one, it must be the best possible one.

We cannot predict what happens in this world since we do not have God's mind. It follows that, not knowing we are completely determined, we actually experience ourselves as free. Freedom maybe defined as 

                                              not knowing all the reason why we behave in certain ways. God would                                                 also be the creator of this world, because Leibniz argued that a world                                                   with freedom but evil is better than a world with little freedom but no evil.

However, another problem arises: there is still a difference between what is experienced (freedom) and what is actually the case (a world totally determined, in this particular case by the mind of God). Can they be related without conflicting? The German Philosopher Immanuel Kant tackled this question.  

DETERMINED BUT FREE-KANT

To understand Kant's view, two terms must be defined:

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)

1. Phenomena- Things as we experience them

2. Noumena- Thing as they are in themselves (we don't need experience to know them)

According to Kant, our minds understands Phenomena by means of the concepts of space, time and causality. Our minds are organised to assume that everything experienced is an effect for which there is a cause, and this is how we understand Phenomena. However, I know I am free to act. I experience freedom, although I cannot detect in the phenomenal world. Kant thus saw humans as Phenomenally determined but Noumenally free. What is experienced may be determined, as our minds are organised to perceive things that way, but we experience our own freedom- it is one of the presuppositions of every choice made.

In other words, the world that we experience maybe determined, but we are free as humans; freedom is Nominal, to use Kant's term.

In the next part of the post, scientific determinism, the role of quantum physics and also how viewing a complex situation either from a reductionist or a holistic point of view impacts on the free-will and determinism debate.

A PHILOSOPHY THAT CHANGED THE WORLD: MARXISM (PART 4)

INTRODUCTION 

In this final post of the Philosophy of Marx, criticisms towards his theories will be discussed. The criticisms are generally directed at his ideas of history, economics and how attempts to apply Marxist principles have not worked. 

MARXIST CONCEPTION OF HISTORY

In part 1, the idea of the dialectic was discussed, as well as Marx's interpretation that all events in history are subject to it. Although it may be a useful way at looking at the past, to claim that the dialectic is a general law that effects all events, past and future can be criticised. Such a claim cannot possibly be verified. Furthermore, to claim that society is heading towards the ideal of a classless system can also be attacked, for is this society the ideal? Can the process not continue on? 

Marx also claims that as society develops, it becomes ethically superior. The classless system is therefore superior to those societies that preceded it. If we speak of such historical progress, then we are judging those societies against some moral criterion, which Marx will not admit the validity of. He himself claims that moral values are not expressions of 'eternal truths' but are relative to which society they are in. Thus, one can see an inconsistency between Marx's objective ideals of history and his subjective views of social morality.   

MARXIST ECONOMIC THEORY

According to Marx, the capitalist system inevitably produces periodic depressions, misery of the workers and ownership of wealth by the owners of production. Such misery is what causes a revolution and inevitably the establishment of a classless society. 

However, defenders of capitalism may argue that none of this can be confirmed. If anything, the workers are doing better, as they have more money and can afford to work fewer hours, and have a higher standard of life. Capitalism has produced higher standards of living and better relations between the workers and the owners. Within the system there are also developments that protect the workers: the growth of trade unions, anti-trust laws, and social-security measures that keep they system working. 

On the other hand, a response to this maybe that the many of these measures are socialist measures; perhaps this system maybe preferred. Measures such as trade unions are needed to stop the system destroying itself; otherwise capitalism will take the part already described by Marx. 

The view that capitalism requires within it safeguards to protect the workers maybe valid, but this does not imply that capitalism should be completely replaced. 

MARXISM IN THE 20TH CENTURY 

Many countries such as the former East Germany, Hungary, the former Soviet Union and many other parts of eastern europe adapted Marxist principles. When they applied Marx's theories, there were obvious flaws. 

Firstly, the idea of the state being replaced by a classless society was shown to be false. Many countries since 1917 which attempted to apply Marxism became dictatorships and suppressed the ability of their people to democratically participate in Government (not being able to join any political party except the communist party for example) and became increasingly unpopular. Eventually in the late 1980's and early 1990's, massive opposition to governments meant that countries such as the former Soviet Union, combined with economic difficulties disintegrated and were replaced. 

Marxism does underestimate the force of nationalism and ethnic rivalries and identifications. These, rather than belonging to an economic class have motivated changes in countries such as Yugoslavia, where ethnic differences, rather than communist ideals, led to disintegration of the state. 

Finally, economically speaking Marxism has not worked. In areas such as the former Soviet Union, people's standard of living fell behind those in the west, and especially in the Soviet Union, where after many years of planning could still not produce enough food to feed it's population.  

It could be argued though, that many of these countries did not apply Marxist principles properly. There are countries where socialist principles have been applied in a democratic system such as the Scandinavian countries and countries such as France and Italy, which make for better models of Marxism. 

So what do we make of this system? Maybe we could say it is still relevant, maybe it should dismissed out right. In the middle, is the view that Marxism is correct in highlighting some of the negatives in capitalist society and that there are ways to deal with them, but that the ideals themselves are impossible to follow.  

Sources: Philosophy (Popkins and Stroll)
               Religion and Science (Mel Thompson) 

A PHILOSOPHY THAT CHANGED THE WORLD: MARXISM (PART 3)

CAPITALISM HARMS HUMANITY

According to Marx, capitalism causes humanity to disappear in the treatment of people by each other, and is replaced by an inhuman drive for profits. So not only did Marx argue that capitalism was economically flawed, but part of his theories focuses upon the ethics of that system, and his views on morality will be further discussed.

THE PROBLEMS OF AN INDUSTRIAL WORLD

According to him, industry and technological advances develop very rapidly, in fact faster than the techniques of controlling them. So those developments which should have made it possible for people to live together more comfortably are doing just the exact opposite.

The system is driven to accumulate the maximum profit, so it will cause wars; children might be forced into labour and the tension between the classes is intensified. This is caused by two factors: 'self-alienation' and 'fetishism'. 

Self-alienation- Marx used this term to describe a person's plight in the industrial world. Industry does not help improve the person's relationship with other people nor is it helpful; people are cut off from one another, are isolated and made fearful and insecure. A person creates a highly technical world, but cannot control it and cannot gain any leisure, culture, comfort and so on from it. 

Fetishism - This is a worship of the products of labour. For instance if the labour results in a car, having produced a car, we become ruled by this object. They could be said to be 'obsessed' with such objects. It might be said that this leads to a very materialistic society. 

MARX'S ETHICAL VIEWS

A picture during the industrial revolution. It shows a child
sweeper.

Capitalism depersonalises the relations between people and makes them more like machines and machines more like people, according to Marx. In his opinion, this is what makes the system ethically inferior and problematic. 

Marx feels that socialism will remedy the economic problems of capitalism (discussed in part 2) and introduce a new morality, which is superior and which will be different to a machine-centred morality. This new morality will be based on human values, not on machine values.

Having explored Marxist ideas, we must now understand some of the criticisms made towards his ideas, and that will be discussed next. 

A PHILOSOPHY THAT CHANGED THE WORLD: MARXISM (PART 2)

THE SYSTEM OF A CLASS 

A Russian Propaganda Poster depicting the Capitalist Class
System. (Around the time of the first Russian Revolution)

In this post, Marx's economic theory will be discussed, but before this can be done, it is important to understand how Marx understood the working of the class system. 

Marx felt that every person belongs to certain socio-economic group within society, known as a class. The system of classes that a given culture has is completely determined by the economic means and conditions of production in that culture. Capitalism is thus an economic system with three main social classes: those who own or control the means of production, the capitalists; those who are entirely dependent upon the earnings they get while working for the owners, the working class; finally we have the middle classes such as business people.

This is an important point to understand. In the previous blogpost I had mentioned the logical process of the dialectic and Marx's interpretation of the same. According to him, the thesis (in the struggle between the classes) is the presence of capitalist upper classes exploiting the lower classes economically. The anti-thesis is the working classes who, fed up of their conditions and lack of proper pay will rise up, and the synthesis will eventually be a classless society. Let us now examine Marx's economic theories to see how this happens.

LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE

This theory, though not unique to Marx*, is used in his ideas. The theory of Labour value attempts to define what is meant by 'economic value'. He distinguishes between 'use value' of a commodity and its 'exchange value'. While a commodity might be useful for us, it may not have any worth if we try to exchange it for something else. The air might be useful to us, but we could not exchange it for something else. Something has exchange value, if it needs to obtain at a cost, for example buying a book using money. Marx termed this cost its 'economic value'.

What makes a commodity costly is the amount of labour power that goes into its production. So 'economic value' is defined in terms of the quantity of labour necessary for its production. Marx went on to say that the worker is forced to sell his/her labour and thus is a commodity themselves. the amount of money which the employer pays to the worker is an estimation of the economic value of the labourer. We now move on to what Marx called 'The Theory of Surplus Value'

THE THEORY OF SURPLUS VALUE 

The labourer is said to produce goods which have a higher economic value than those wages the worker receives. There is a difference between the economic value of the product and the amount the worker receives for their efforts. Marx termed this difference the 'surplus value'. The employer does not pay them for this, instead they take the surplus value and utilise it in various ways, mainly profit. According to him, the workers actually produce the wealth through the amount of labour they contribute, but the capitalists take a considerable amount of it without rewarding the worker. This is how they make their profit. 

This is a crucial point, because it allows us to examine the source of the conflict between the classes. Whilst the capitalist wishes to accumulate the maximum profit, the worker demands a higher way and to buy good as cheaply as possible. Marxists see this inconsistency leading to an unavoidable conflict.

THE COMING OF SOCIALISM

The aim of the capitalists is to maximise profit. This involves engaging in constant competition with other business people, since making profits depends on the number of goods sold. To sell the most number of goods also means selling them as cheaply as possible. In the long run, the easiest way to do this is to use the cheapest labour possible. As the capitalist gains more profit in this way, getting the cheapest labour possible is vital. Ultimately, they will drive smaller businesses out of competition and will remain in competition with a few large scale producers. To keep maximising their profit, the capitalist must pay the workers less and less, and so on. 

This tendency according to Marx will eventually ensure that the workers will keep getting poorer and the capitalists richer. Tension will develop as the workers get tired of being exploited (they become 'class conscious') and finally conflict will break out. The outcome of the conflict is that the worker will take over the means of production, and a new thesis will be inaugurated- the age of the classless society, or socialism.

What will be discussed in the next part of this blog post is what Marx highlighted as something ethically wrong with this drive towards profits, caused by the economic system of  capitalism. 

*This theory owes much to the works of economists such as David Ricardo and Adam Smith. 

A PHILOSOPHY THAT CHANGED THE WORLD: MARXISM (PART 1)

INTRODUCTION 

There is no doubt Marxist Philosophy has had a major impact in our world, inspiring revolution and the ruling of Governments both in the past and in the present day. To understand Marxism is not only to understand Philosophy but also history, politics and economic theory, to name a few, have all been majorly influence by Marx. 

WHO WAS KARL MARX? 

Karl Marx

Marx (1818-83) was born in Prussia, now in Germany. Born into a wealthy middle-class family, he went to the universities of Bonn and Berlin, where he became interested in the Philosophy of Georg Hegel, which would majorly influence his ideas. After university, he wrote for a radical left-wing newspaper in Cologne, and started the process of formulating his theories. He moved to Paris in 1843 where he continued writing for radical newspapers and also where he met Fredrick Engels, who would become a life-long friend and helper. Expelled form France in 1845, he then opposed the Prussian king in 1849, and thus moved to London in exile in 1849. It is here that he formed much of his theories on society, economics and politics, which would be called Marxism. 

INTRODUCING MARXISM 

Marxism is not easy to define as a theory. Marx's Philosophy depends on the disciplines such as logic, metaphysics, economic theory and ethics. In this blog post I will introduce one of the central ideas surrounding his Philosophy, the idea of the Dialectic.

THE DIALECTIC 

Georg Hegel

A term often associated with the Philosopher Hegel, the Dialectic actually goes back to Plato. It is a logical process of resolving arguments. An idea, or a certain argument, known as a thesis, will exist. An opposing idea or argument is called an anti-thesis also exists, and the two opposing ideas will clash. However, they are resolved in what is known as a synthesis. This new idea could be another thesis, and will be resolved with an anti-thesis in a synthesis, and so on. 

Hegel expanded on this idea. In what is popularly known as the 'Hegelian Dialectic' he proposed that this process is always taking place between nations. The process goes on ad infinitum and is heading to an ideal, what he called the 'Spirit'. To understand Marx requires this understanding of Hegel's Metaphysics.  

Marx accepted the idea of the dialectic, as he felt that this process governed the events of history and that all occurring events are subject to this law. However, he did not accept the Hegelian idea of the 'spirit'. He felt instead that the synthesis which governs the events in history is actually a struggle taking place between the classes. How is this so? 

THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN THE CLASSES

Marx explained that the history of the world should not be regarded as history of the rivalry between nations, but the rivalry of the classes is what causes historical change. According to him, societies can be broken down into a thesis and an anti-thesis: king-rulers on the one hand, the dispossessed and slaves on the other. A struggle creates a new synthesis: Feudalism, which itself breaks down into the opposing forces of lords and serfs. The struggle within Feudalism lead to a new synthesis, namely capitalism. However, a struggle between the proletariat (the working classes) and the bourgeois (the upper classes) will eventually resolve itself in a new synthesis, namely a classless society.

The famous Hammer and Sickle.
His Philosophy inspired communism.

According to Marxists this conflict is inevitable as those societies which are inferior will be replaced. In other words, conflicts between classes are not created by human beings, they will happen due to the nature of the dialectic. Marx believed that the eventual society will have no classes, and where wealth is share equally amongst the people, who will have enough
and will not need a government.

A further look at the role of economics and the class system is
required to understand Marxism. In Part 2 of this blog
post I will discuss these issues as well as discussing
certain points of Marx's economic theory.

CAN ANYTHING BE TRUE?!

INTRODUCTION

What is truth? Is there any such thing as an absolute truth? Can we ever know it? Is what is the truth reached by agreement within a community? In this post I wish to explore the Philosophical arguments and concepts concerning truth.

THE PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEM OF TRUTH

So what is true? That which is a matter of opinion, something which corresponds to an external feature in the world, or the agreement within a community of what is wrong and what is right? This post will define and explore some of the concepts which drive the 'truth' debate. 

POST-MODERNISM

In examining 'Truth', two key positions must be understood. The first position is Post-Modernism. Social ideas, such as an acceptance of right and wrong, what is beauty and so on never remains consistent. Our attitudes and views towards people and life change as we learn more about the world and on the circumstances. Thus, whilst before the 1960's, using contraception was considered wrong, in most societies today the use of contraception is widely accepted.

According to the post-modernist, what we consider true or false, is widely dependant on our perception. Thus to speak of an ultimate truth is meaningless, for it is merely perspectival. An example of such thought is very clearly seen within art. 

The above position may also be termed relativism. This is opposed to objectivism, which believes there is a truth that exists regardless of opinion.

FUNDAMENTALISM

The term 'fundamentalist' is often associated with those religious believers who follower their scripture to the letter, believing it is the ultimate truth, the only truth and that it ought to be the truth of everyone.

Fundamentalism though is a much broader term. Someone is described as a fundamentalist if they believe there is an ultimate truth to be gained. Such a truth, however can only understood through a certain way of thinking or acceptance of certain facts.

To return to the example of religion, a Christian evangelist maybe described as fundamentalist if they believe that salvation can only be achieved through following the Bible and 'through the grace of Jesus Christ'. Peter Vardy in 'What is Truth?' uses the definition provided by scholar Felipe Fernandez Armesto: 'Fundamentalism means uncritical, literal acceptance of what are supposed to be the founding doctrines or documents of a tradition.'  

Peter Vardy, author of 'What is truth?'
For him, we must move beyond these
two positions. 

JUSTIFYING A CLAIM OF TRUTH

Having introduced two possible positions to take on the debate, it is also important to understand how truth claims are made. The first view is known as Realism.

Realism: This is a theory of truth that claims that a statement of truth must correspond to a state of world affairs. For this reason, it also known as correspondence theory of truth. Thus, if we claim that 'the cat sat on the mat', to the realist, this is true and only true if we saw that the cat was indeed sitting on the mat. Thus, if something is beautiful, it must be beautiful regardless of opinion. It affirms bivalence, that is something is either true or false regardless of opinion or circumstances. 

The second view is known as Anti-Realism.

Austrian Philosopher Ludwig
Wittgenstein, who proposed
the theory of language games.

Anti-Realism: This is the view that there is no correspondence theory. What we consider true or false is what coheres with other true statements within a form of life. 'A form of life' here is defined as a grouping such as religion, which use language and have beliefs which according to anti-realists is true within those players of 'a language game'.

Language games is a theory of language developed by Ludwig Wittgenstein that follows this coherence theory of truth. People use language and make claims which are only significant to those 'players' in that 'language game'. Thus, an anti-realist believes truth is what agreed within the community, depending on the rules of the 'language game', also known as its grammar. For instance, to speak of a soul may make sense to the Metaphysician, but none to the scientist. 

IMPLICATIONS

Let us explore these two theories further. In examining religious claims, adopting a realist view, or an anti-realist view will often spark debate. Religious believers who accept a correspondence theory of truth may hold, for example, that we can infer the laws of nature and establish the existence of the divine through reason. Such a position gives rise to what is popularly knows as 'Natural Theology'. In examining nature, we can at least say that we establish a probable existence of God. Aquinas's five ways, the Ontological argument and the cumulative argument (the idea that combining the various arguments makes it more probable than not that God exists) are some examples of arguments from Natural Theology. 

On the other hand, an anti-realist may accept the claims such as 'Jesus Christ is the son of God' or 'the archangel Gabriel appeared to the Prophet Muhammad' but will argue that none of these claims are objectively true. They are true only within the community that establishes them. The implication of such a view is that no one religion is more correct than another; but that what is true in one 'form of life' may not be true for another, it is down to the language game in which it exists, and to those who are 'players' in that language game.

CONCLUSION: THE TRUTH DILEMMA

The fact that things may be true or false raises more problems than we may realise. Can we be sure of the existence of an ultimate truth for example? Or is what is true merely a matter of opinion and is contingent upon the community which creates it?

Just some Philosophical food for thought! :) 

Sources: 'What is Truth?' by Peter Vardy

               'A2 Religious Studies' by Sarah Tyler and Gordon Reid

WE ARE BAD WITHOUT RELIGION?!

RELIGION AND MORALITY: CONNECTED?

"Without God, everything is permitted"  Fyodor Dostoyevsky

"(The autonomous man will have) developed his own, independent,

long range will, which dares to make promises; he has a sense of power

and freedom, of complete accomplishment" Friedrich Nietzsche 

Can we be good without religion? Do we need to derive our morals from scripture? Questions such as these are often asked when trying to determine whether religion and morality are in some way connected. The answer is by no means clear, and whilst philosophers and theologians have put forward arguments in support of the view that they are linked, there are many who would deny this; they may even argue that they oppose one another. These questions are important: issues raised have challenged religious belief as well as systems of secular ethics. 

DIVINE COMMAND ETHICS

The Bible. Christians believe that God's word is revealed through it.

This system of ethics believes that what makes us moral is God's commands. As an omni-benevolent being, God is the source of all goodness and so his instructions reveal how we should live. But from where do we gain God's commands?

The source of God's authority is said to be revealed through scripture. In scripture, moral commands are written down. For instance, in the Christian Bible contains the Decalouge (The Ten Commandments 'Thou Shalt not kill' etc.), the Sermon On The Mount, where Jesus gave moral guidance, and other moral instructions such as 'Love thy neighbour'. Scripture also recommends how we should lead a religious life, through prayer, through tradition, through rules. Following this ensures we will lead a moral life.

Those who believe scripture truly reveals God's intentions will find this view convincing. But there are problems. One is the more obvious one of whether God exists. If he does not exist, then the source of the morals revealed through scriptures is not God. It can also have the implication that what is written in scripture is reduced in value. 

Even if a belief in God is justified, the problems do not end there. Atheist Richard Dawkins examines some of the Old Testament in the 'God Delusion' and attacks the supposed 'picking and choosing' and also the content of these stories. For instance, he mentions the story of Noah, stating that "God took a dim view of humans, so he (with the exception of one family) drowned the lot of them including children and also, for good measure, the rest of the (presumably) blameless animals as well.". He says that "irritated theologians will protest that we do not take the book of genesis literally any more" but "we pick and choose which bits of scripture to believe ,which bits to write off as symbols or allegories." It may be argued that much of scripture is era-dependant (the bloody time in which the Koran was written, for instance) and in parts shocking to a modern reader ,whether it be Lot being seduced by his daughters, or Job's suffering. Are such stories consistent with an an all loving God? 

Other criticisms are related to historical inaccuracies, such as those surrounding Jesus's birth, and by the influence of the author's personal views, such as St Paul's attitude to women. Of course, whose interpretation of scriptures is right? Atheists may even ask, whose book is correct? 

GOD, MORALITY AND THE EUTHYPHRO DILEMMA

The relationship between religion and morality is one which a religious believer must resolve, even examining the view that it doesn't exist. The scholar R.B Braithwaite argues that to be religious is to be committed to a set of moral values. Religious language, he claims, is the language of morality and that religious believers have committed themselves to particular ways of behaving. One of these way maybe that to believe in God is to live in obedience to his will and law, and the way in which he makes moral commands is crucial to understand. 

However, the moral critique observes that the demands that are said to be made by God lead to absurd, pointless and dangerous outcomes. 

One moral critique and a major challenge to the relationship between religion and morality is Plato's Euthyphro dilemma: Does God command X (any moral command) because it is good, or is X good because God commands it? 

If God's command should be followed because it is good, then goodness is separate from God. He is not its source and his morally good nature isn't perfect. He cannot bring goodness into being other than goodness he access from outside him. If this is accepted, he is not the wholly good God that people may worship. 

If something is good because God commends it, then in principle anything God commands should be followed as it always good. However, how do we respond if a command from God goes against our sense of right and wrong? The story of Abraham almost sacrificing his son is an example that immediately comes to mind. Was the command given to Abraham, to test his faith, a good command, although it may have led to a horrible conclusion, and may lead to the image of malevolent God? Or is such a view superseded by the virtue of faith?

A.C Grayling

MORALITY WITHOUT RELIGION? 

The scholar A.C Grayling argues that "...religion is precisely the wrong resource for thinking about moral issues in the contemporary world, and indeed subverts moral debate". He suggests that modern society values freedom, achievement, saving money, insuring against the future and being rewarded for success,  and religion is not consistent with the modern times. His view is that others should be seen as intrinsically valuable, and this should be a source of our morality.

Richard Dawkins speaks of a Darwinian explanation for our morality. In speaking of a gene ensuring its own survival relative to other genes, it may be that these genes influence organisms to behave altruistically. These 'altruistic genes' promote four different kinds of behaviour:

 Richard Dawkins

i) Kin altruism where an organism acts to favour their genetic kin. Being good to one's children is an example and Dawkins also explains how certain organisms have evolved societies where elder siblings take care of the younger ones, such as bees, wasps and ants.

ii) Reciprocal altruism, the principle of 'You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours'. He explains it as such "The principle is the basis of all trade and barter in humans too. The hunter needs a spear and the smith wants meat". It works "because of asymmetries in needs and in capacities to meet them". It is greater he claims, between different species as the "asymmetries are greater".

iii) Altruism which has the benefit of developing a reputation, for instance of kindness and generosity.

iv) Altruistic deeds which are an advertisement of dominance and superiority. In terms of Anthropology this is known as the Potlatch effect, named after custom where rival chieftains of North- Pacific tribes attempt to outdo each other through generous feasts. 

He goes on to explain that "Through most of our prehistory, humans lived under conditions that would have strongly favoured the evolution of all four kinds of altruism" for instance in villages, or in roving bands. You would be closely related to your group, and may have come across other groups, and due to this, he argues, it is easy to see how all four evolved. 

What Grayling and Dawkins are trying to show is that we do not need God or religion to understand the roots of morality or even as sources of morality.  Numerous other explanations of how we gain our morals and our ethics also exist and some of their authors have attempted to show, such as the two examples here, that religion and morality are independent of one another. 

Sources: 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins
               'A2 Religious Studies' by Sarah Tyler and Gordon Reid

MUCH OF WHAT WE SAY: MEANINGLESS?! (PART 2)

In part 1 (http://phenomenal-philosophy.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/much-of-what-we-say-meaningless-part-1.html), we introduced the Logical Positivism movement and its main idea - the Verification Principle. An apparently impressive idea, its critics exposed its weakness to such an extent that the theory was discredited by the 1970's. In part 2 we will discuss these weaknesses.

OBJECTIONS

1.A major problem with the Verification Principle is that it is self refuting: 'A statement is only literally meaningful if it is a tautology (analytical statements) or can be empirically verified', yet we cannot verify this proposition empirically nor is it a tautology. Could we even verify it in principle (remember Ayer's hills on the moon?)? I found this funny video while attempting to search for the answer, do take a look http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ags_M3ILszo 

2. Another major issue is that it rules out historical statements, as even though there is evidence (books, letters, official documents etc) there is no way of empirically verifying them. To say that 'the Battle of Waterloo took place in 1815' is a meaningless statement as there is no one alive who could claim to have experienced it.

3. Think about the statement 'I love you'. It is an unverifiable emotion, and would be ruled out as meaningless. We could not definitely define what it means to love someone, but when we make the claim it is understood as meaningful, so it meaningful in principle.

4. Ethical and moral statements are said to be meaningless. No sense experience could verify the statement 'do not kill'. However, such statements influence the shaping up of religious and secular laws and some of these statements are considered for the most part universalisable.

5. We cannot absolutely verify the laws of science. No finite number of observations can conclusively prove that 'Gravity causes an object to fall back to the ground'.

RESPONSES: DOES THE THEORY WORK?

A.J Ayer in 'Language, Truth and Logic' suggested a 'strong' and a 'weak' form of the principle. Strong Verification deals with statements whose truths raise no doubt 'A circle is round'. Weak Verification involves statements where there is no absolute certainty, only but there is a strong likelihood of truth due to evidence existing e.g. the sun rises every morning. The philosopher in you might say that separating the principle into two forms help deal with 'a priori' and 'a posteriori' forms of truth. The idea of verification in principle (hills on the other side of the moon) would also be used as a response. 

None of this however solves the problems. One objection that could be raised is that the positivist might see religious language as meaningless but the scholar John Hick has argued that many religious claims are historical, and since weak verification would allow historical statements due to the existence of evidence, then at least in principle a statement such as 'Jesus rose from the dead' is meaningful. 

If we knew what would in principle verify a statement, then we could say it is meaningful. However, we can object to this because in theory virtually any statement could be verifiable if it were known, in principle, what would verify it. Thus, much of what the movement claimed as meaningless, such as Metaphysics, may be shown to be meaningful, it is just that we cannot know what will verify it. 

You could also accuse Logical Positivism of assuming that you could apply the scientific principle of empirical observation to the use of language, saying that a proposition must make a claim that observation could verify. This denies that human beings use language in a rich variety of ways, such as creating great works of literature; we don't just use language to evaluate what is right and wrong. It also assumes that observation best verifies a statement, but you could easily object to this claim, as we can easily be deceived by our senses. Richard Dawkins talks about the power of the brain*, processing information and creating an image which could easily be misleading, quoting the illusion of the **'Necker's Cube'

The Necker's Cube

Perhaps the biggest problem is that accepting the theory's criteria makes the theory itself meaningless. We have no way of showing that it is meaningful, no statement of logic, no piece of empirical data, no hypothesis we can test. It is an example of the kind of statement which the first positivists wished to evaluate the meaning of; statements which were accepted almost axiomatically (self evident truth which need no proof). 

Thus the movement failed to the extent that even A.J Ayer later said that most of what was claimed by this movement was 'false'. It still retains an important place in the history of Analytical Philosophy due to its large impact and because it influenced further movements. 

For both parts Sources: 'Language, Truth and Logic' by A.J Ayer

                                     'A2 Religious Studies' by Sarah K. Tyler and Gordon Reid  

                                     'The Thinkers Guide to God' by Peter Vardy and Julius Arliss

                                     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Necker_cube.svg

                                     http://askaphilosopher.wordpress.com/2012/05/09/does-the-verification-principle-fail-by-its-own-criterion/

                                     

*In the God Delusion, Dawkins talks about the power of the brain when objecting to the view that Religious Experience justifies belief in God.

** Find out more about this illusion http://www.youramazingbrain.org.uk/supersenses/necker.htm

MUCH OF WHAT WE SAY: MEANINGLESS?! (PART 1)

Moritz Schlick, Chair of the Vienna Circle

INTRODUCTION

In the 1920's, a group of scholars known as the Vienna circle, with scholars from the Berlin circle met at the University of Vienna. The conclusions that they arrived at were to dominate Philosophy for over 30 years.

These group of people gave birth to a movement known as 'Logical Positivism'. The implication of the theory suggested by the Positivists was to say that much of the language we use, such as in religion, morality and metaphysics is meaningless, as it did not meet certain criteria.

THE PRINCIPLE OF VERIFICATION

The Positivists applied the principles of science and maths to language and argued that language had to be based on experience. The idea was to determine what made a sentence 'literally meaningful'.

The Principle Of Verification states that, for a sentence to be meaningful, it had to be based on experience, in other words by our senses. 

A sentence is also considered meaningful if it met one of the following criteria:

i) Analytic statements: This would include a sentence such as 'A circle is round'. Any statement which is 'a priori', i.e. it has its own verification, as we know a circle is round.

ii) Mathematical statements: These statements can only be wrong due to human error, otherwise they are true.

iii) Synthetic statements: Statements which can be empirically tested to verify or to falsify them are known as Synthetic statements. They are 'a posteriori' statements; they make claims which can tested by observation and can therefore be said to be true or false. Theoretical statements such as 'life exists on other planets' are said to be meaningful, as in the future we could verify or falsify them. The example used by Ayer in 'Language, Truth and Logic' is to say that there are hills on the other side of the moon. At the time he wrote this there could not have been conclusively verified, yet to a Positivist it would have been meaningful.

LANGUAGE, TRUTH AND LOGIC  

Alfred Jules Ayer

The ideas of the positivists spread to U.S.A after the scholars had to escape oppression. Through the efforts of Alfred Jules Ayer, the work became accessible in Britain. He introduced their ideas in the English language. 

As I am currently reading his book, I will make references to it.

CRITIQUE OF METAPHYSICS

Ayer starts his book by criticising Metaphysics on the grounds that the statements used by the metaphysician are of no literal meaning. He says that no statement which refers to 'reality' which transcends the limits of sense experience can have literal meaning, 'from which it must follow that the labours of those who have striven to describe such a reality have all been devoted to the production of nonsense'. 

He distinguishes by between practical verifiability and verifiability in principle. A synthetic statement would be an example of the latter, such as there being hills on the other side of the moon. However, if we take a sentence such as 'the Absolute enters into, but is itself incapable of, evolution and progress' it cannot even be verified in principle, 'For one cannot conceive an observation which would enable one to determine whether the Absolute did, or did not enter into evolution and progress.'

Ayer goes on to explain how the statements of Metaphysics come to be made. He talks about the concept of Being. If we take the two sentences 'martyrs exist' and 'martyrs suffer', both consist of a noun 'martyr' and an intransitive verb, which may lead one to assume that both are the same logical type. However, even before Ayer, scholars like Kant and G.E Moore argued that existence cannot be used as an attribute, in the same way that, in this case 'suffer' is being used, 'for when we ascribe an attribute to a thing, we covertly assert that it exists.' Thus, a mistake is made if existence is treated as an attribute; people who assume this 'are guilty of following grammar beyond the boundaries of sense.'

Similarly, a mistake is made if we treat the sentence 'Unicorns are fictitious' in the same way as 'Dogs are faithful'. Dogs must exist in order to be faithful, but to say the same about unicorns is a contradiction. It could be argued that unicorns do exist in some 'non-empirical' sense, 'but since there is no way of testing whether an object is real in this sense' to say that that fictitious objects have some sort of existence has no literal significance and is meaningless. This results from treating 'fictitious' as an attribute.

THE PURPOSE OF PHILOSOPHY

An implication of accepting the Verification principle renders academic disciplines such as Metaphysics, Theology, Ethics and even History meaningless. It also changes the purpose of the discipline of Philosophy.

This a key theme in Ayer's book. In the first chapter itself he remarks 'The most traditional disputes of philosophers are, for the most part, as unwarranted as they are unfruitful'. From here on we understand that Ayer wishes to create a system which addresses this 'The surest way to end them is to establish beyond question what should be the purpose and method of a philosophical enquiry'.

The positivists, including Ayer would have argued that the purpose and method of enquiry of Philosophy is to establish what statements are meaningful and to work with those. Anything else, especially Metaphysics, cannot be shown to be meaningful.

All of this looks impressive, and its appeal made it a major part of Philosophy for three decades. However, the theory was discredited and even Ayer later disavowed his famous work. What's wrong with it? Find out in part 2

ARISTOTLE: THE CREATOR OF SCIENCE?!

Significance of Aristotle 

Aristotle. In this picture his
palm points downwards
and his book 'ethics' is flat,
showing that reality is
within experience.

We all accept without further inquiry that Aristotle was a great Philosopher. Some may even know him because of his Metaphysics. But did you know that because of Aristotle, science was seen as important in the western world? Did you know that he introduced the idea scientific investigation? It was he who, unlike his teacher Plato, wished to gain knowledge from observing the world we live in, instead of looking beyond experience. 

Those who are keen to, observe the world to collect evidence. From this evidence, we can draw conclusions. We may have a hypothesis which could be corroborated or disproved by this evidence, or we may wish to answer a question such as 'What does the universe look like?' It was Aristotle who introduced this discipline to the western world. 

That science plays an important role in our life, few would question. Its basis and usefulness comes from the discipline of observation and the collection of evidence to answer questions. The significance of Aristotle's contribution in making this understood cannot be overstated.

Aristotle the scientist

In advocating the use of observation to reach a conclusion, Aristotle is considered the first western scientist. His entire approach is based on scientific evidence and observation. For him, it is by scientific method that we can work out what things should be, instead of looking out to some heavenly realm of perfection. He was an empiricist, that is someone who relies on experience to gain knowledge. He was the first person to show how truths can be established through scientific method and observation

Aristotle classified many types of animal and plant and considered that each member of different species of living things and every living thing shared a distinct nature. (In that sense he is the father of taxonomy) If something fulfilled its nature it was considered good, and it was considered defective if it did not

Influence of Aristotle  

There is no question that Aristotle's work had a very large impact on Philosophy. In particular, his view of the universe was accepted for thousands of years and combined with biblical teaching, some of Plato's teaching and Ptolemy of Alexandria's cosmology*, was the basis of Christian Philosophy until scholars such as Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo seriously challenged these views.

The idea that God is 'an unmoved mover' and exists outside time and space are also key ideas that theologians use to describe God. In the 13th century St Thomas Aquinas used the idea of Aristotle's God being an 'unmoved mover' as one of his 'five ways' to prove God's existence, with the idea of motion.

Finally, one more point that can be made from this discussion is the idea that if something fulfilled its nature it was considered good, and it was considered defective if it did not. This is the idea of privation, a physical lack of a quality. For instance, blindness is a privation of sight. It is not to be confused with absence. You might say that a horse having no wings is an absence, but a bird with no wings is a special kind of absence; you would say that this is a privation of flight.

The reason this idea is important is because when we consider the problem of evil**, many theologians use the idea the evil is a privation of good when defending the existence of God in theodicies (solutions to the problem of evil). The most famous scholar to do so is St Augustine of Hippo

The world is not a dance of the shadows

Plato argued that true reality lay beyond the limits of human experience, which he expressed in the analogy of the cave and in his theory of Forms

However, Aristotle rejected Plato's approach.

In particular, he argued that we must answer questions by starting from observation of our surroundings - we must look at the world as it really is. In doing so, we must collect evidence: if say, we wish to understand what makes a good person, we must study people. 

The Universe according to Aristotle

The Earth is at the centre of the universe.

He controversially held that the Earth is a sphere, as the shadow cast on the moon by the Earth would be different if it was flat, as it was believed then.The Earth was fixed with the stars, the sun and the moon revolving around it. Aristotle thought that the stars were fixed in circular rings that revolved around the Earth in perfect circles. 

It is important to understand that these ideas were accepted for over a thousand years. As history shows, although he was a scientist, his accepted views actually hindered scientific progress, because whenever scholars like Copernicus or Galileo tried to reject this view of the cosmos, they were often persecuted and dealt with harshly.

Aristotle's God

Whereas Plato argued that the 'Demiurge' creates the universe with pre-existing matter, Aristotle defines God differently. 

He argued that the universe is everlasting and has always existed. The Earth was the centre of the universe, and round the Earth, in forty concentric rings, were the stars. He believed that the circle was the perfect shape and therefore stars revolved in perfect, circular orbits. The first ring of stars was moved by the second ring, the second by the third and so on. The question is, what moves the fortieth ring? 

His answer was that God moved the fortieth ring. This God however did nothing: does not create the cosmos, does not keep the universe in existence, and does not intervene in its affairs. Even so, God causes the fortieth ring of stars to move!

God in a sense is the 'Great Attractor'. To explain how this works, we use an analogy provided by Fr. Gerry Hughes SJ. Imagine there is a room with a carpet and there is a cat at one side of the room and a bowl of milk is placed at the other. The milk does not move, yet the cat will go across the carpet to the milk.

This God is outside time and space and was not an object in the universe

Key terms: *In this cosmology the Earth is at the centre of the universe. It is surrounded by 10 glassy spheres on which the moving planets and the fixed starts were located. 7 of the Spheres were for the known heavenly bodies, an eight for the starts, the ninth which was invisible and moved the others, the final was the abode of the Gods. It was believed that they had circular orbits as circular motion was considered perfect.

**The problem of evil states that if God is all good and all powerful, then evil should not exist. If evil does exist, we must either accept that God is not all good, or all powerful or that he is non-existent. Solutions to the problems, Theodicies, attempt to resolve this inconsistency. 

Sources: 'Religion and Science' by Mel Thompson

              'The Thinkers Guide To God' by Peter Vardy and Julie Arliss

CHAOS AND CONFUSION IN LIFE&DEATH ETHICS

Life and death are major areas within moral philosophy. The ethics of assisted reproductive technologies such as IVF, donors and surrogacy, and at the opposite end of the spectrum abortion, euthanasia (active and passive) and assisted suicide, amongst others evoke strong reaction. These issues are not abstract philosophical problems existing in academic journals; these are issues which apply to the everyday world and have direct consequences for human beings.

In order to further my understanding of this veritable minefield,  I am reading- 'Rethinking Life and Death' by Peter Singer and 'Causing Death and Saving Lives' by Jonathan Glover. In a future blog post I will give a more detailed review of these books, as I am yet to finish. However, I will share some of what they have to say about our approach to these issues. For anyone interested in bioethics and applied ethics, I would highly recommend these books.

Emotion clouds judgement

Glover argues that emotion often clouds our judgement. Whilst we accept the statement 'killing is wrong', he points out that we find it hard to hold onto this principle when confronted with killing in specific contexts: "Very few people are committed to absolute pacifism. Some support capital punishment. There are several different views about abortion." Another issues he raises is the drawing of boundaries when we talk about killing. When, for example is a war justified? When talking about abortion, it could be argued that it is justified if the baby born will be severely handicapped, but these same people will be "appalled at the suggestion that we should kill grossly abnormal children or babies who have already been born".

Glover attempts to answer the question whether we can formulate general principles to tell us which acts of killing can be classed as right or wrong. He divides the book into two sections: The first part deals with method of argument, the second with moral theories such as the sanctity of life.

Singer too raises the point that such issues cause chaos and confusion. His hypothesis however, is that our long held beliefs, mainly the ethic of the sanctity of life, are under attack, and that we must rethink our traditional ethic in light of the advances in modern technology, where people who are considered brain dead have their bodily functions continuously running by life support machines, for instance. He wishes to introduce a new way of looking at life and death (as yet I cannot say what it is!) 

The Sanctity of life under attack

The doctrine of the sanctity of life states that life should always be upheld as it has particular sacredness. Even those who are not religious will argue that there is something special about life and should hence always be preserved. The doctrine is attacked by both authors. Let us first deal with Glover's critique.

Glover: Killing as a direct wrong and the importance of consciousness

If we accept the sanctity of life, we are saying that killing is an intrinsic wrong, that killing is wrong in itself. Glover rejects this, but wishes to say that life is important. How does he reconcile this? 

When we talk about killing being wrong, we often talk about direct and side effects. By side effects we can say for instance the grieving of family. Glover is not concerned with that.  When we speak of a direct wrong, we talk about the negative effect, i.e. consequence on the person killed. It is this view which Glover wishes to retain. He also tries to set a boundary between life and death. 

Moral Philosopher Jonathan Glover 

An instance where this issue becomes important is how we treat a person in an irreversible coma. Is he/she alive? Still a human being? In investigating such an issue, Glover comes to the conclusion that essentially we are dealing with the importance of consciousness. He asks "Do we value life if unconscious, or do we value life only as a vehicle of consciousness?" He answers that life is a vehicle of consciousness. "Those of us who think that the direct objections to killing have to do with death considered from the standpoint of the person killed will find it natural to regard life as being of value only as a necessary condition of consciousness."

He introduces the concept of a 'Life Worth Living'.  Glover doesn't deny that what makes such a life isn't easy to decide. He does however say this "A life worth living has more to it than mere consciousness," which is described as simply consisting of awareness or the having of experiences. When humans have something more than just being aware, then to end such a life is directly wrong. 

Such a view can have dangerous consequences, but Glover is not advocating that we exclude certain people, he is saying that we are only trying to judge whether someone's life is so empty and unhappy as to not be worth living. The attempt  ("obviously an extremely fallible one") is to see the person's life from there point of view and to see what they get out of it. There is no suggestion that we have the right to start killing people if they don't have a 'life worth living'. The point being made is that if this person has such a life, "this is one reason why it is directly wrong to kill him". 

Singer's Critique. 

In Peter Singer's view,  the traditional ethic "has collapsed". He cites the case of Anthony Bland*, a young man who after the infamous Hillsborough disaster** was left in a persistent vegetative state. On the 4th of February 1993 Britain's highest court allowed doctors to lawfully end his life. According to Singer "we are going through a period of transition in our attitude to the sanctity of human life". Such a problem he says, is bound to cause 'confusion and division'. (In the case of abortion, many who do not agree with abortion may well go the paradoxical extreme of murdering doctors who carry out the procedure!)

Bioethicist Peter Singer 

The confusion is further caused by the advances of medical technology. We are now able to keep people who are brain-stem dead for decades. The question is, should we always uphold the Sanctity of life, regardless of the quality and nature of that life? Singer answers "that ethic (the Sanctity of Life) is now being brought undone by changes in medical technology with which its inflexible structures simply cannot cope."

The need for a new outlook is cited by certain examples. For instance the "American Medical Association has a policy that says a doctor can ethically withdraw all means of life prolonging medical treatment, including food and water, from a patient in an irreversible coma. Yet the same policy insists that the 'physician should not intentionally cause death'." 

In summary, if we hold onto an ethic whose views are inconsistent with the medical advances of today, it is bound to create problems. For this reason we must rethink our views on life and death which can cope with these new issues.

Further information

*Anthony Bland- http://www.spuc.org.uk/about/no-less-human/Bland.pdf

**The Hillsborough disaster- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillsborough_disaster

More on the authors: Peter Singer- http://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/

                                  Jonathan Glover- http://jonathanglover.co.uk/