This is by no means a comprehensive introduction to philosophy, but it contains the basics. This is not what you would get by taking an intro philosophy course, mostly because at no point in any philosophy course would you typically get an introduction like this. These topics would be covered but never in a simple systematic way.
If physics is the study of how things move, and how the universe works, then philosophy is the study of how we think, and how we view the universe.
There are three main branches of philosophy: Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Ethics.
Metaphysics deals with how we fundamentally understand how the universe works, and what makes up the universe. This sets what we consider to be "allowable". This includes things like whether matter is made up of atoms, strings, the four elements, or plum pudding. But it also includes how we view consciousness, the mind, and how we think.
If you want to know the metaphysics of a person then ask them to define, or describe consciousness. The answer they give will not tell you anything about what consciousness actually is, but it will teach you about their metaphysics.
Metaphysics can be broken down into several (sometimes non-exclusive) broad categories. Dualism is the idea that there are two (or dual) components to reality. The material, or physical world, and the world of "the mind" or spirit, or rational thought. Monism is the idea that there is only one nature and both matter and the mind derive from the same source. Materialism is the idea that everything is the result of the fundamental laws of physics and the interactions of particles. Materialists deny that "the mind" is a separate thing apart from the firing of neurons in the brain. Materialists are by definition monists, but not all monists are materialists. One example of non-materialist monists are Mormons. Classical Christianity, Islam, and a few other worldviews are fundamentally dualist.
Epistemology deals with how we know, and know about the world. Perhaps Professor Truman G. Madsen, who spent five decades dealing with philosophical questions, put it best when he said, "There are really only five main modes that have been appealed to in all the traditions, philosophical or religious: an appeal to reason, an appeal to sense experience, to pragmatic trial and error, to authority—the word of the experts—and, finally, to something a bit ambiguous called 'intuition.'."
Science falls squarely under the umbrella of epistemology. If anyone gets into a discussion about what science fundamentally is, it ultimately rests on an endorsement of a particular epistemology, and nothing else. On a fundamental level, science does not have a preferred metaphysics* or ethics.
Logic is a subset of epistemology, and is not synonymous with it.
Ethics deals with what we value. Your ethics determines how you interact with other people and animals, and occasionally things. This area of philosophy is usually the messiest and most contentious.
Ethics is strongly related to Aesthetics, since what we value is generally what we find beautiful, and what we enjoy is what we value.
A huge portion of religion deals with ethical questions.
These three, Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Ethics are all related to each other, and mutually supportive, and occasionally at odds with each other. That is, our metaphysics determines our epistemology and ethics. While our epistemology informs us of our metaphysics and ethics, while our ethics reveals our metaphysics and epistemology. One cannot have a particular metaphysics without a corresponding epistemology, nor ethics. Because once one is set the others will automatically be defined.
The short descriptions I have given above are by no means exhaustive, nor are the examples I gave all there is. The key is to know that there are these three parts to philosophy, and they are interconnected, related, codependent, reinforcing, and co-determining. They are also by no means static. The particular metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics of someone will definitely change over time.
Also it is possible, and very likely, for someone to have a particular metaphysics, epistemology, or ethics, and not be able to explain or articulate their thought, any more than most people could give a complex breakdown and accounting of their diet, including any and all nutrients. It is also possible to have the particular implementation of one of the three be incompatible with the others (people who smoke may also exercise).
But generally the position of any one of the three will determine the other two. The interrelationships are complex and usually take a great deal of effort of understand.
Most changes in someone's philosophy are subtle and almost imperceptible, but if there is a major shift in one of the three then that will precipitate a reevaluation of the other two.
Doing philosophy correctly can help uncover your own particular metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. It can show how the particular implementations may be incompatible. For example, if you really believe that everyone is created by God (metaphysics), then that should determine how you treat them (ethics).
We may not realize it but our ethics (and by extension our metaphysics and epistemology) are revealed by our aesthetics. Think about what movies, TV shows, books, stories, blogs, or news articles you like to consume. The kinds of entertainment we like, or the fictional characters we identify with, act as a litmus test for our ethics.
What art is hanging on your wall? Is it realistic, like photographs, or hyper realistic paintings? Or is it abstract? What is the subject matter? All these things can reveal how you fundamentally view the world, and how you think about knowing the universe.
Just as asking about how one views consciousness will reveal their metaphysics, what one surrounds themselves with, or their aesthetics, reveals their ethics, and ethics is codependent on their metaphysics and epistemology.
*I stated that science does not have a preferred metaphysics. That is not entirely true. Because science, as an epistemology, requires a corresponding metaphysics and ethics. It's just that the metaphysical and ethical demands of pure science are minimal. Most pronouncements regarding what we "should do" because of science, actually have nothing to do with science as an epistemology. When people make an appeal to "Science", or Science™, they are always, without realizing it, bringing a particular metaphysics and ethics along with them. Their assertions don't actually have much to do with the epistemological method known as science.
Showing posts with label Ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ethics. Show all posts
Sunday, February 18, 2018
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Moral Discipline
A few months ago I wrote a post about research done by a Dr. Dan Ariely. Part of the work done by Dr. Ariely showed that people tended to be more honest when they were reminded of their moral code (even if it was a nonexistent moral code). In my previous post I concluded that "In the absence of a moral code, or a consistent moral code, it would seem that the only way to keep most people honest would be through active regulation of their actions."
About a month after writing that post I watched a talk given by Elder D. Todd Christofferson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. The talk was entitled Moral Discipline and I found it very interesting because he spoke on almost the exact same topic that I had covered, but with more insight and more advice as to what to do about the problem. Here are some excerpts from the talk that I found very interesting.
What I have learned from observing these different societies is that if people want peace then there needs to be more moral discipline and less unbounded personal freedom. More responsibility and less entitlement. More reminding and less enforcement. Only then can we be free.
About a month after writing that post I watched a talk given by Elder D. Todd Christofferson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. The talk was entitled Moral Discipline and I found it very interesting because he spoke on almost the exact same topic that I had covered, but with more insight and more advice as to what to do about the problem. Here are some excerpts from the talk that I found very interesting.
Essentially the argument is that as societies fail to maintain and encourage moral codes the only other alternative to maintain a civil society is to increase the number and enforcement of laws, or as Elder Christofferson put it, "The lack of internal control by individuals breeds external control by governments." It is with these ideas in mind that I look at societies like those in France or Greece and find it odd that they accept or (as in the case of Greece) actively encourage protest and violent protest as a legitimate means of expressing political frustrations, and then they complain about living in a "police state". In my own experience with places where I have lived, the places where protest was not the first resort of political expression have tended to be more peaceful and less prone to be characterized as having a "police state" mentality. But in places (such as Argentina) were protest and violent protest was a societal tradition the people tended to complain more of government oppression and viewed police and other government forces as adversaries rather than protectors."The societies in which many of us live have for more than a generation failed to foster moral discipline. They have taught that truth is relative and that everyone decides for himself or herself what is right. Concepts such as sin and wrong have been condemned as “value judgments.” As the Lord describes it, “Every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god” (D&C 1:16).
As a consequence, self-discipline has eroded and societies are left to try to maintain order and civility by compulsion. The lack of internal control by individuals breeds external control by governments. One columnist observed that “gentlemanly behavior [for example, once] protected women from coarse behavior. Today, we expect sexual harassment laws to restrain coarse behavior. …
“Policemen and laws can never replace customs, traditions and moral values as a means for regulating human behavior. At best, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society. Our increased reliance on laws to regulate behavior is a measure of how uncivilized we’ve become.”2
In most of the world, we have been experiencing an extended and devastating economic recession. It was brought on by multiple causes, but one of the major causes was widespread dishonest and unethical conduct, particularly in the U.S. housing and financial markets. Reactions have focused on enacting more and stronger regulation. Perhaps that may dissuade some from unprincipled conduct, but others will simply get more creative in their circumvention.3 There could never be enough rules so finely crafted as to anticipate and cover every situation, and even if there were, enforcement would be impossibly expensive and burdensome. This approach leads to diminished freedom for everyone. In the memorable phrase of Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, “We would not accept the yoke of Christ; so now we must tremble at the yoke of Caesar.”4
In the end, it is only an internal moral compass in each individual that can effectively deal with the root causes as well as the symptoms of societal decay. Societies will struggle in vain to establish the common good until sin is denounced as sin and moral discipline takes its place in the pantheon of civic virtues.5"
What I have learned from observing these different societies is that if people want peace then there needs to be more moral discipline and less unbounded personal freedom. More responsibility and less entitlement. More reminding and less enforcement. Only then can we be free.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Empirical Basis for Honesty and Morality
The other day I came across an interesting talk at TED.com. The subject matter I found very enlightening.
There are several implications to what Dr. Ariely has shown here. I will start with the one that he explicitly mentions, the stock market. Based on his work it would imply that stock markets would always contribute to dishonest behavior. Because stocks, bonds and securities are a step away or more from actual money or commodities people will naturally try to cheat at trading them. This point was made with his test where subjects were given tokens in reward for answering questions right. As he pointed out, that one additional step lead more people to cheat. This would seem to imply that an unregulated stock market will always fail due to dishonest and unethical practices.
Based on his work we could conclude that there are only two ways to have a stock, bond or securities market that will not be overrun by dishonest behavior sooner or later. The first is heavy regulation (similar to the control set where everyone turned in their tests to be graded and were paid accordingly). The second is to have a consistent moral system and to constantly remind the participants of it (his example where test subjects were asked to recall the 10 commandments).
These ideas can be extended into other areas, such as corporate management, government bureaucracy, classroom administration and business transactions. On the one hand most problems with dishonesty can be taken care of through either regulation or reminding people of their moral codes. In the absence of a moral code, or a consistent moral code, it would seem that the only way to keep most people honest would be through active regulation of their actions. This of course runs into the problem of who will then regulate the regulators etc.. It would seem that the easier option would be to simply remind people of their moral code. This seems to be the route taken by the University of North Carolina.
At UNC all students are required to sign the university honor code, and also whenever they turn in an assignment they are required to write a note stating that what they are turning in is their own work (i.e. they did not cheat) and then they must then sign it. This is done on every test, paper, lab report and homework assignment (as an interesting note, this is required of all undergraduates but for graduate students this requirement is hardly ever enforced, but for graduate students there is a greater expectation of maturity, and the punishment for cheating is usually much more severe). So upon watching Dr. Ariely's talk I realized that the UNC policy of signing the honor code for everything including single page homework assignments was an attempt to remind the students of their "moral code" and to try to prevent most cases of cheating. The efficacy of this particular method is debatable and open to interpretation.
This effort to reduce dishonesty may be intentional, but after reflecting on it there are many places where this method of reducing dishonesty is used almost unintentionally. In the case of the BYU testing center there are pictures of Jesus and Karl G. Maeser along with his famous chalk circle quote. These serve as reminders of the BYU honor code and the moral system in general that inspired it. These pictures, quotes and reminders were placed with the intention of reminding people about their moral duties and thus preventing, to some degree, cheating.
This method does not prevent all cheating but it does work to prevent the majority of it, because as Dr. Ariely pointed out, the increase in cheating did not come from one or two individuals who "skewed the curve" but rather from a significant portion of the people cheating just a little bit. So the purpose of using the moral reminders is not to prevent all cheating but to prevent almost everyone from doing it. The rest of the people can be taken care of through regulation.
In the case where moral reminders are not allowed or are not permissible then the default to preventing unethical behavior must be through regulation, or enforcement of specific rules. Again to show this I turn to the honor codes of both UNC and BYU. A quick comparison between the two shows that the UNC code (known as "The Instrument") is much much longer. I think a pdf version of it is about 50-60 pages long. On the other hand the core of the BYU honor code consists of nine short statements (one line each) and then four specific policies. The whole code, including disciplinary policies and procedures is only slightly longer than the Preamble to the UNC honor code. Why the difference? Again the BYU code relies on a common and consistent moral system that is shared (or should be shared) by everyone at BYU. The main enforcers of the BYU honor code are the students themselves, they are given the duty of reminding themselves and each other about the moral commitment they have made, and in general it works.
The UNC honor code is much longer and full of lots of rules and regulations. Despite this BYU has arguably a stricter honor code. So again why the difference? The UNC code does not (and some would say could not) rely on a common moral system shared by the students and thus it (meaning the honor code and UNC in general) must create its own moral framework. In the absence of the ability to appeal to a moral code we are either left to deal with people cheating (being unethical, if only to a small degree) or have to resort to imposing systems of rules and regulations.
So now let us consider these ideas in the most general sense, that of our lives in general. Here it would seem that we have three options: 1. Live without any means of controlling unethical behavior, 2. Prevent unethical behavior by reminding people about their common moral code or, 3. Prevent unethical behavior through rules and regulations.
With option #3 rules must be made for all instances, possibilities, contingencies and situations. The problem with this option is that we eventually end up with a long document detailing all the rules as in the case with the UNC honor code, or worse the US tax code. With option #2 the resulting code of conduct may be greatly reduced (9 lines of general guidelines, or 10 commandments) but it requires that each and every person be committed to living by the code and be constantly reminded of it. This requires more personal involvement and more personal investment to learning and living by the moral system but overall the "cost" or "overhead" of the moral code is greatly reduced. Option #1 is not desirable and is the whole reason for even mentioning options 2 and 3. More later.
There are several implications to what Dr. Ariely has shown here. I will start with the one that he explicitly mentions, the stock market. Based on his work it would imply that stock markets would always contribute to dishonest behavior. Because stocks, bonds and securities are a step away or more from actual money or commodities people will naturally try to cheat at trading them. This point was made with his test where subjects were given tokens in reward for answering questions right. As he pointed out, that one additional step lead more people to cheat. This would seem to imply that an unregulated stock market will always fail due to dishonest and unethical practices.
Based on his work we could conclude that there are only two ways to have a stock, bond or securities market that will not be overrun by dishonest behavior sooner or later. The first is heavy regulation (similar to the control set where everyone turned in their tests to be graded and were paid accordingly). The second is to have a consistent moral system and to constantly remind the participants of it (his example where test subjects were asked to recall the 10 commandments).
These ideas can be extended into other areas, such as corporate management, government bureaucracy, classroom administration and business transactions. On the one hand most problems with dishonesty can be taken care of through either regulation or reminding people of their moral codes. In the absence of a moral code, or a consistent moral code, it would seem that the only way to keep most people honest would be through active regulation of their actions. This of course runs into the problem of who will then regulate the regulators etc.. It would seem that the easier option would be to simply remind people of their moral code. This seems to be the route taken by the University of North Carolina.
At UNC all students are required to sign the university honor code, and also whenever they turn in an assignment they are required to write a note stating that what they are turning in is their own work (i.e. they did not cheat) and then they must then sign it. This is done on every test, paper, lab report and homework assignment (as an interesting note, this is required of all undergraduates but for graduate students this requirement is hardly ever enforced, but for graduate students there is a greater expectation of maturity, and the punishment for cheating is usually much more severe). So upon watching Dr. Ariely's talk I realized that the UNC policy of signing the honor code for everything including single page homework assignments was an attempt to remind the students of their "moral code" and to try to prevent most cases of cheating. The efficacy of this particular method is debatable and open to interpretation.
This effort to reduce dishonesty may be intentional, but after reflecting on it there are many places where this method of reducing dishonesty is used almost unintentionally. In the case of the BYU testing center there are pictures of Jesus and Karl G. Maeser along with his famous chalk circle quote. These serve as reminders of the BYU honor code and the moral system in general that inspired it. These pictures, quotes and reminders were placed with the intention of reminding people about their moral duties and thus preventing, to some degree, cheating.
This method does not prevent all cheating but it does work to prevent the majority of it, because as Dr. Ariely pointed out, the increase in cheating did not come from one or two individuals who "skewed the curve" but rather from a significant portion of the people cheating just a little bit. So the purpose of using the moral reminders is not to prevent all cheating but to prevent almost everyone from doing it. The rest of the people can be taken care of through regulation.
In the case where moral reminders are not allowed or are not permissible then the default to preventing unethical behavior must be through regulation, or enforcement of specific rules. Again to show this I turn to the honor codes of both UNC and BYU. A quick comparison between the two shows that the UNC code (known as "The Instrument") is much much longer. I think a pdf version of it is about 50-60 pages long. On the other hand the core of the BYU honor code consists of nine short statements (one line each) and then four specific policies. The whole code, including disciplinary policies and procedures is only slightly longer than the Preamble to the UNC honor code. Why the difference? Again the BYU code relies on a common and consistent moral system that is shared (or should be shared) by everyone at BYU. The main enforcers of the BYU honor code are the students themselves, they are given the duty of reminding themselves and each other about the moral commitment they have made, and in general it works.
The UNC honor code is much longer and full of lots of rules and regulations. Despite this BYU has arguably a stricter honor code. So again why the difference? The UNC code does not (and some would say could not) rely on a common moral system shared by the students and thus it (meaning the honor code and UNC in general) must create its own moral framework. In the absence of the ability to appeal to a moral code we are either left to deal with people cheating (being unethical, if only to a small degree) or have to resort to imposing systems of rules and regulations.
So now let us consider these ideas in the most general sense, that of our lives in general. Here it would seem that we have three options: 1. Live without any means of controlling unethical behavior, 2. Prevent unethical behavior by reminding people about their common moral code or, 3. Prevent unethical behavior through rules and regulations.
With option #3 rules must be made for all instances, possibilities, contingencies and situations. The problem with this option is that we eventually end up with a long document detailing all the rules as in the case with the UNC honor code, or worse the US tax code. With option #2 the resulting code of conduct may be greatly reduced (9 lines of general guidelines, or 10 commandments) but it requires that each and every person be committed to living by the code and be constantly reminded of it. This requires more personal involvement and more personal investment to learning and living by the moral system but overall the "cost" or "overhead" of the moral code is greatly reduced. Option #1 is not desirable and is the whole reason for even mentioning options 2 and 3. More later.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
The Aesthetic vs. The Profane: Our Judgements of Value
A while ago I had the opportunity to get to know a bus driver named Ron. For eight hours a day he drove a city bus and when ever I rode the bus home I got to talk to him, usually about how his day was going, but occasionally he would spot a large tour bus and he would begin to talk about his dream job of driving a tour bus from state to state. I never knew how beautiful a tour bus could be until I met Ron.
My experience with Ron demonstrates a principle of philosophy that governs the field of Aesthetics. In aesthetics we learn that a person's opinion of beauty reveals their judgments of value. In other words, what we consider to be beautiful we also consider to be of great value. Furthermore our value judgments are derived from our ethics, which simply put is a system of beliefs or rules that we use to determine whether or not something is good or bad, and to what degree. When we apply these personal and social rules to things that are not intended for sustaining life, but to improving the quality of it, we are creating or participating in Aesthetics, or art.
When we make these value judgments and determine something to be good we set it apart from the rest of the world to emphasize the fact that we value it more than other things. This action of setting apart can be done through language, such as Ron pointing out and talking about a tour bus, or by actions, such as framing and displaying a painting. While this setting apart can be done in many ways, it is always what we value most we set apart, and call art.
With this understanding we can look at what people call art in order to understand their system of values. This idea is not new and can be expressed in many ways, such as "You can learn a lot about a man based on art he buys." or "You can tell what someone is like by looking at what songs they have on their iPod." It is precisely for this reason the contents of President Bush's iPod became national news a few years ago. People were interested because they considered it a "window to his soul", or a way of finding out about what he values the most.
When this special separation takes place between art and the rest of the world, the rest of world, by definition becomes common and is purposefully excluded from "art". Also, to go to the other extreme, if something is considered "bad" and in our value judgment is deemed to have negative value (as opposed to merely neutral value) then that thing is considered to be vulgar or profane. Again this goes back to our ethics and what we consider to have positive value, no value or negative value. If something has positive value in our system of ethics, or morals, then it is singled out as having aesthetic value or is called art. If it has neutral value then it is called common and is largely ignored. If it has negative value then it is labeled as vulgar or profane.
This idea becomes particularly interesting when we observe works of "art" on display. This idea is not lost on artists and as a matter of fact they frequently use it to make their art more powerful. If an artist exhibits something that has high moral or ethical worth to a viewer then the viewer will respond positively and will express their appreciation or consent to the art. If the object of art has little or no value then the viewer will ignore the art, and finally if it has negative value then the viewer will exhibit a negative reaction and the "art" will be considered offensive.
Again this idea is frequently used by the media when they display pictures in news stories or show footage of events. If a media organization want to show the effects of war, they would rather show a picture of someone crying after having their home destroyed than show a picture of someone passively looking on as neighbors clean up a destroyed home. The reason why they choose to show certain pictures is because they want to maximize the moral or ethical response from their readers or viewers. The reason why this works is because in our common moral system someone crying has greater negative moral or ethical value than someone passively standing by. So while it may not produce the same effect from everyone, it will produce a strong effect in more people, thus they use it.
If we continue along this line of thought we can discover a lot about the moral and ethical system that people operate under by observing how they respond to artistic or aesthetic objects. One example that I came across recently was in a news paper article. The article dealt with a piece of performance art where the performer used "explicit language". One audience member who was interviewed by a reporter responded to the performance by saying, "because she didn't use [explicit language] throughout the entire presentation--only the performance--it really was art." Herein lies an interesting phenomena prevalent in our modern society. Something usually considered vulgar or profane, is inserted into a "work of art" and rather than be rejected because of the mixing of the profane with the aesthetic, the "art" is accepted and applauded for its "brilliance". This example demonstrates a facet of the moral or ethical rules that some people live by. This concept which I am about to explain is in no way new, and has been used many times throughout history, in many different ways, but it is important to point out so that we may understand what some people value which forms a basis of their "moral system".
As I mentioned above about the devices used by the media, there is a school of artistic and ethical thought that wants to maximize the emotional response of the participants. They have found that the easiest way to do this is to insert something with negative moral or ethical value in to something that should have positive, or even just neutral, value. The media uses this device to "shock" their readers or viewers so that they experience an emotional response. In modern art this is frequently used to justify the insertion or displaying of some rather vulgar, crude and offensive objects. The "artists" realize that some of their audience will be offended by these things and thus for them that offense has high moral and ethical value. In other words, the artists value the fact that they are offending someone. In segregating their works of art from the rest of the world and displaying them, the greatest value does not come from the object in and of itself, as it was with Ron considering a tour bus to be beautiful, but rather in the fact that they are shocking and offending someone.
Their object in all of this is to take something that is morally offensive and try to convince their audience that what they consider vulgar or profane should be classed as artistic or of great worth. When these artists get enough people to agree with them then they can change the common set of rules that we use to determine what is good and what is bad. They are in effect changing, or in some cases removing all together, the moral systems of our society. At this point I should say that changing one's moral system, in and of itself is not bad, any more than walking is inherently bad. But when this change leads us away from a stable, secure and peaceful life to one filled with confusion, doubt and despair, then these changes are destructive and in the truest sense of the word cannot be considered moral.
When these changes take place they are quite often taken haphazardly and without regard to a person's or society's complete moral system. These haphazard changes quite often result in inconsistencies in one's moral system or fallacies of logic in one's manner of thinking. These mistakes or errors can be corrected, but all too often when they are pointed out they only lead to resentment and bad feelings. Unfortunately these feelings of resentment, offense and hatred also have negative moral value and thus it is considered offensive, or even profane, to suggest that someone has an error in their moral system. Thus to compensate, those that allow for a flawed moral system must assign a negative moral value to any attempt to correct their moral system. This way of thinking is dangerous and difficult because then that person that structures their moral system to give value to contradictions, must preserve and protect their system from the criticism of others while actively trying to insert contradiction into other's moral systems.
But if we have a moral system that does not allow for contradiction, that does not allow the insertion of the vulgar or profane in the place of the aesthetic, then that system needs no defense, because the system itself is sufficient to prevent the destructive influence of contradictory or degrading material. With a self-consistent moral system our moral and ethical aptitude can only increase as we continuously learn how to apply our good morals to our experiences and existence. When we apply a self-consistent moral system to our daily lives, where we work to sustain life, we can then increase the quality of our lives, by introducing truly aesthetic art into our lives so that we can appreciate that which we value the most.
My experience with Ron demonstrates a principle of philosophy that governs the field of Aesthetics. In aesthetics we learn that a person's opinion of beauty reveals their judgments of value. In other words, what we consider to be beautiful we also consider to be of great value. Furthermore our value judgments are derived from our ethics, which simply put is a system of beliefs or rules that we use to determine whether or not something is good or bad, and to what degree. When we apply these personal and social rules to things that are not intended for sustaining life, but to improving the quality of it, we are creating or participating in Aesthetics, or art.
When we make these value judgments and determine something to be good we set it apart from the rest of the world to emphasize the fact that we value it more than other things. This action of setting apart can be done through language, such as Ron pointing out and talking about a tour bus, or by actions, such as framing and displaying a painting. While this setting apart can be done in many ways, it is always what we value most we set apart, and call art.
With this understanding we can look at what people call art in order to understand their system of values. This idea is not new and can be expressed in many ways, such as "You can learn a lot about a man based on art he buys." or "You can tell what someone is like by looking at what songs they have on their iPod." It is precisely for this reason the contents of President Bush's iPod became national news a few years ago. People were interested because they considered it a "window to his soul", or a way of finding out about what he values the most.
When this special separation takes place between art and the rest of the world, the rest of world, by definition becomes common and is purposefully excluded from "art". Also, to go to the other extreme, if something is considered "bad" and in our value judgment is deemed to have negative value (as opposed to merely neutral value) then that thing is considered to be vulgar or profane. Again this goes back to our ethics and what we consider to have positive value, no value or negative value. If something has positive value in our system of ethics, or morals, then it is singled out as having aesthetic value or is called art. If it has neutral value then it is called common and is largely ignored. If it has negative value then it is labeled as vulgar or profane.
This idea becomes particularly interesting when we observe works of "art" on display. This idea is not lost on artists and as a matter of fact they frequently use it to make their art more powerful. If an artist exhibits something that has high moral or ethical worth to a viewer then the viewer will respond positively and will express their appreciation or consent to the art. If the object of art has little or no value then the viewer will ignore the art, and finally if it has negative value then the viewer will exhibit a negative reaction and the "art" will be considered offensive.
Again this idea is frequently used by the media when they display pictures in news stories or show footage of events. If a media organization want to show the effects of war, they would rather show a picture of someone crying after having their home destroyed than show a picture of someone passively looking on as neighbors clean up a destroyed home. The reason why they choose to show certain pictures is because they want to maximize the moral or ethical response from their readers or viewers. The reason why this works is because in our common moral system someone crying has greater negative moral or ethical value than someone passively standing by. So while it may not produce the same effect from everyone, it will produce a strong effect in more people, thus they use it.
If we continue along this line of thought we can discover a lot about the moral and ethical system that people operate under by observing how they respond to artistic or aesthetic objects. One example that I came across recently was in a news paper article. The article dealt with a piece of performance art where the performer used "explicit language". One audience member who was interviewed by a reporter responded to the performance by saying, "because she didn't use [explicit language] throughout the entire presentation--only the performance--it really was art." Herein lies an interesting phenomena prevalent in our modern society. Something usually considered vulgar or profane, is inserted into a "work of art" and rather than be rejected because of the mixing of the profane with the aesthetic, the "art" is accepted and applauded for its "brilliance". This example demonstrates a facet of the moral or ethical rules that some people live by. This concept which I am about to explain is in no way new, and has been used many times throughout history, in many different ways, but it is important to point out so that we may understand what some people value which forms a basis of their "moral system".
As I mentioned above about the devices used by the media, there is a school of artistic and ethical thought that wants to maximize the emotional response of the participants. They have found that the easiest way to do this is to insert something with negative moral or ethical value in to something that should have positive, or even just neutral, value. The media uses this device to "shock" their readers or viewers so that they experience an emotional response. In modern art this is frequently used to justify the insertion or displaying of some rather vulgar, crude and offensive objects. The "artists" realize that some of their audience will be offended by these things and thus for them that offense has high moral and ethical value. In other words, the artists value the fact that they are offending someone. In segregating their works of art from the rest of the world and displaying them, the greatest value does not come from the object in and of itself, as it was with Ron considering a tour bus to be beautiful, but rather in the fact that they are shocking and offending someone.
Their object in all of this is to take something that is morally offensive and try to convince their audience that what they consider vulgar or profane should be classed as artistic or of great worth. When these artists get enough people to agree with them then they can change the common set of rules that we use to determine what is good and what is bad. They are in effect changing, or in some cases removing all together, the moral systems of our society. At this point I should say that changing one's moral system, in and of itself is not bad, any more than walking is inherently bad. But when this change leads us away from a stable, secure and peaceful life to one filled with confusion, doubt and despair, then these changes are destructive and in the truest sense of the word cannot be considered moral.
When these changes take place they are quite often taken haphazardly and without regard to a person's or society's complete moral system. These haphazard changes quite often result in inconsistencies in one's moral system or fallacies of logic in one's manner of thinking. These mistakes or errors can be corrected, but all too often when they are pointed out they only lead to resentment and bad feelings. Unfortunately these feelings of resentment, offense and hatred also have negative moral value and thus it is considered offensive, or even profane, to suggest that someone has an error in their moral system. Thus to compensate, those that allow for a flawed moral system must assign a negative moral value to any attempt to correct their moral system. This way of thinking is dangerous and difficult because then that person that structures their moral system to give value to contradictions, must preserve and protect their system from the criticism of others while actively trying to insert contradiction into other's moral systems.
But if we have a moral system that does not allow for contradiction, that does not allow the insertion of the vulgar or profane in the place of the aesthetic, then that system needs no defense, because the system itself is sufficient to prevent the destructive influence of contradictory or degrading material. With a self-consistent moral system our moral and ethical aptitude can only increase as we continuously learn how to apply our good morals to our experiences and existence. When we apply a self-consistent moral system to our daily lives, where we work to sustain life, we can then increase the quality of our lives, by introducing truly aesthetic art into our lives so that we can appreciate that which we value the most.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)