The unexamined Life....

Socrates, in the apology he made before Athens prior to his sentence to death, made the claim that the unexamined life is a life that is not worth living. Born and raised in a culture enslaved by lower desires, I used to think it was particular to post-modern existence to be surrounded by non-inquirers and non seekers; to be surrounded by slave moralists pursuing death.  The words of Socrates, shine light on the fact that it is an entirely human condition to avoid thought to allow for perversion of the will. The classical philosophical tradition repeatedly and forcefully laments the sophistical and rhetorical relativism that accompanies every human epoch; it is easier to wallow in the mire than to think and challenge the lower desires.  Hence, why philosophers, priests, and saints tend to be the most hated of men.  They offer a very distinct challenge to run of the mill humanity.

Of course, if we are going to examine life, as Socrates bids, then we ought to ask whether the life of base pleasure is the truly human way of living.  We ought to ask if relativism, rhetoric, and sophism are the truth?

First, though, we must preface this.  You all know that I shun relativism and think it is a failed morality that leads to individual and ultimately corporate slavery for humanity.  The lust for power, domination, money, sex, are what deny peace to the human race.  With my perspective being apparent, and knowing who I think is the enemy, you can judge whether the opinion is adequately liberal, or detached from prejudice enough to be an honest seeking of the truth.  Having lived the existential lifestyle, my negativity towards it comes from having been a slave myself; indeed, we are all slaves in that we are fallen.

So why does relativism, the claim that there is no moral truth, draw so many into unwitting slavery?  There must be some truth in it if it draws our beings, as by nature (yes, I know, I use that ugly teleological word) we must see something as true and good in order to pursue it.  In modern philosophy, casuistry or situational ethics, has taken the day.  Following Descartes' methodical doubt, we have demanded clear and distinct, i.e. mathematical precision, even in ethics.  Ethics are contingent, they depend on an infinite number of circumstances, so to demand mathematically precise answers in moral situations amounts to demanding the impossible. Yet, Enlightenment philosophers tried to do so, and in so doing failed. Nietzsche, of course, said that meant morality had failed. 

For instance, Kant gave us the categorical imperative, which is "only will that which you can will to be a universal maxim," and this golden rule could govern every moral situation.  So, if I willed to steal my neighbors car because it was a nice vehicle, I have to ask myself "Can I will that anytime someone has a nice vehicle, I can steal it? Can this be a universal maxim?"  You cannot will it, on Kant's account, because it would be a contradiction.  I would say, "In my own personal situation, it is ok to steal the car, but in the universal situation, it is wrong to steal a car."  Thus, I would contradict myself.  Kant's maxim is applicable to any moral situation.  If you're in a life boat and its going to sink because of too many passengers, you let it sink. Why, outcomes do not matter and you cannot will to commit suicide nor can you will to kill anyone else as these would violate the categorical imperative.  Anyone with common sense looks at that and says, "that's insane and wrong."  What is the common sense that beckons us in this way (here's a hint: it's a cardinal virtue and their prince -- prudence)?

Similarly, a utilitarian like Mill, would have another one way to answer every ethical dilemma.  He would ask, what does the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people?  In the lifeboat situation, you kill someone as that would save the rest.  Utilitarianism is a dangerous relativism because it rules out nothing as per se evil.  So murder becomes ok if it benefits the largest amount of people. 

Of course, the classical tradition and Aristotle don't demand mathematical precision in ethics. They are wise enough to understand the contigent nature of ethics, and that for virtue to be realized a context is necessary.  So, in the life boat situation, the Aristotelian says, exercise prudence.  Are there women and children on the boat?  Is there someone who is willing to give his life for the sake of another?  Is there terminally ill or elderly who won't survive on the boat in the weather, etc.?  With Aristotle, there is a right course of action, a moral course of action, but it requires that you think.  And it is not mathematically precise, although neither is ethics.

The real draw of relativism, though, is its allowance of personal preference morality.  Essentially, justice, truth, virtue, is what you make it.  Being so drawn by our sexual instincts, and power seeking instincts, relativism gives us a free pass to do whatever we want, so long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others.  The question is, is such a view of the world correct?  It seems, since it draws so many people in, and tempering the passions is something that is often distasteful to us, (think of how hard it is cutting yourself off from that large piece of pie to lose weight,) it might be the case that simply satisfying the passions is the right way to live.  (Hume, Mill, Nietzsche and others would concur with this sentiment.) Indeed, if these are our "instincts," it follows that they may accord with our nature, and thus be right and true.

The first questions we should ask then, is, a) is pursuit of what the passions direct us to always the correct course of action? and b) is there good and evil?  If you look at question (a) and say with some emphasis "No way" you're on the path out of relativism.  If you look at question (b) and say, "there is definitely good and evil," you're on the path out of relativism. If you look at them both and say, "Passions always lead us in the right direction," and "There is only my good and my evil," then you are a relativist.  In the next post, I will finally examine the existence of evil, and we can all ruminate on if it is purely perspectival, or if there are really ontic (grounded in being) and moral evils.

In closing, I will simply ask, would it be right if we all sought to be children our whole lives?  If the draw of the passions, bereft of reason, is the right way for us to live, then we ought to all remain children.  Indeed, it would be better than to be less than that. It would be better to be swine.  Do we want to say that a pig is better off than a man?  The new pagan morality, while not outwardly stating such a thing, inwardly whispers to itself such a reality.  We are a culture worthy of swine.  A culture worthy of an unexamined life.