In my experience, it is often glibbly and triumphantly claimed by academics that human beings are motivated out of intrinsically selfish and utilitarian purposes. Not only the Hobbesian philosopher, but the secular humanist(characterized by utilitarianism and materialism perhaps) would claim that ethics is not dictated by an "ultimate law", but rather are socially and historically developed conventions. This is an entirely pessimistic view of humanity and results in a belief that altruism or love is impossible. This seems wrong to me.
The Christian, or religious person, conversely posits a belief in an ultimate ethical code. God, or a higher power, dictates laws in which the person is entreated to do "right actions" towards the distinctly "other" being as well as the self(and God for that matter). Any action counter to these laws is deemed to be sin and therefore outside of God's will. Altruism and love are defined as adherence to the law. I am immensily repulsed by this idea as well.
I have long been searching for a third way or perhaps a synthesis of these two opposite, yet equally revolting opinions of the world. It dawned on me today as I was speaking with a friend of mine that an answer has been lying under my nose all this time. I was asked to do something by my friend which could have negative consequences for him. I flat out said no. My reason was that I did not want to see him get hurt. I then admitted that I also didn't want to live with the guilt of that. It struck me that it wasn't purely my care, affection or love for my friend which was stopping me from potentially helping him hurt himself, but my own self interest. I did not want to feel loss or pain at my friends potential pain. The materialists seem to be right, but my thought took another unexpected turn.
With all of the writing I have been doing about "self" and my tentative conclusions that there is no central "I", but rather the individual finds definition through interaction with the "other", I have found a solution to the imminent problem of this post. That is, can I act out of real altruistic love outside of the Christian/religious ethical code? I would like to invert the conclusion from my conversation with my friend.
If I reason from the assumption that nothing exists independant from other things, i.e. that the self is found through dialogue with the "other" then even if I act out of self interest I am actually acting out of altruistic love for the "other" simultaeously. Just as my motivation for denying my friend's request was both to protect him for his sake and my own, so also do I behave with altruistic love both for my own sake, but in the broader sense. If part of who I am is "the other" then my motivation for altruism is to benefit both myself and the other, but both at the same time as well. It is the broader "we" whom I seek to benefit. It is not even the collective good that I would be seeking, but self and other edification at the same time. It is only in the ridiculously individualistic and materialistic west, which I find myself in, that this concept of connectivity between "different" beings is entirely misunderstood. It is called maladaptive and naive and is often connected with Christianity. This claim could not be further from the truth.
It is fundamental to Christian ethics that there be a distinct "other". Christianity outright rejects the notion that the connectivity of selves preceeds ethics. At most, a Christian would accept that by living in "loving harmony" with one another we can become united. My argument is inherently different from Christian theology because the connectivity of selves necessarily preceeds ethics. Without this connectivity there is, as a good Hobbesian, moral positivist, utilitarian or materialist would say, no motivation for human beings to act ethically beyond the conventions of society which regulate their actions.
I will support and clarify these claims later, this is but a skeletal framework...
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
i am immensly intrigued; however, i think you need more definition - clarification, if you will. it's needed now!!!!! cuz i cant say i really have an opinion without having yet a full comprehension as to your ideas. I'm getting some of it...seeing that it is you...but more dear, more!
I think you should elaborate on this. It sounds similar to Emerson’s theory of the Oversoul: All souls are just a small portion of a larger soul, being the "Holy Spirit.. The Human Spirit." Similar.
Post a Comment