The Remedy to the Destructive Power of Ethical Philosophy
Introduction - Constructivism
We all have a way that we construct the world. We build ideas on top of each other, developing more and more complexity to our understanding. Constructivism is a concept that describes how when we learn something new. That knowledge then gets integrated into our preconceived understanding of the world. In more concise terms, Constructivism is a mental construction process that builds upon itself.
Each of us has an elaborate network of knowledge constructed in our minds that gives us the tools for interpreting the world. Sometimes this is called a worldview or philosophy of life. This knowledge interprets new knowledge based on itself. For example, if we believe that the earth is flat, that will influence our interpretation of how to interpret the moving of the sun across the sky. If we believe the earth is round, it will give us a foundation for how to interpret the movement of the moon and tides. If we believe that we exist by coincidence, then this will color how we understand the meaning of life.
An interesting question is, what happens when a piece of information doesn't fit into our mental construction of the world? What happens when something occurs that we can't explain with our current structure of understanding?
What happens when the repeated science experiment doesn't give us the intended result? Or when the conversation we had left someone upset when we were expecting them to be happy?
I can think of two obvious options when people are faced with this situation.
First, we can choose to ignore the new piece of information and pretend that it doesn't exist. Throw it away, and continue on our way without giving it a second thought.
This process of simply ignoring the information is easy. All we have to do is lie. Lie to ourselves, lie to others, and ignore, or vilify aspects of Being that we don't like, or don't understand. It allows us to live in a world where we have simple answers to everything which is rather enjoyable for the ego and allows us to focus on other things.
The second option is to choose to rebuild our framework of understanding, looking for the missing bits of structural integrity in our own thinking so that we can rebuild it stronger. The word "deconstruction" is an appropriate term to describe what needs to happen in order to rebuild our mental framework of the world.
The second option is much harder. It takes effort. A lot of effort. Sometimes, it's the most difficult mental exercise you can undertake. We typically don't like to exert more effort than is necessary to make something happen, so the reconstruction of our worldview is typically not anywhere near the top of the list of things to do this week!
Regardless of which option is chosen, it is also important to question the new piece of information. It's always good to validate and verify the new information before constructing part of your worldview off of it. While the practice is good, it also doesn't actually accomplish anything. We have to take action on the new input and either reject it as false or accept it as truth. We need to discover the right way of looking at the new information or find reasonable evidence or proof of validity before we are able to move on.
Hopefully, it's easy to see that the second option of rebuilding and refining your framework of understanding and belief is the better option. It is difficult, but it's also good and with the difficulty comes reward. Reconstructing our worldview is how growth happens. If we accept that we have to restore and repair our worldview, that means we are learning. It means we are growing. If I go through life never having to re-organize and re-evaluate my preconceptions of the world, then it's probably reasonable to question if I'm growing in any significant way as a person.
In this article, I want to dive deeper into the topic of worldview construction. I'm going to do this by discussing two opposing frameworks of understanding ethical philosophy and why both of them miss a crucially important aspect of our human condition.
Absolutism
Ethical Absolutism is the belief that moral truth is objective. It is similar to the concept of Moral Objectivism which is similar but differs in how it looks at situational circumstances. Regardless, both variations view that the meaning of this truth is found outside of ourselves, and applies to everyone in the same way across space and time.
Absolutism gives human beings a moral ideal to aim at that transcends our own being. Having absolute moral Truth allows us to live our life with a singular purpose: To pursue that which is objectively moral and good.
Having a purpose for our lives is all but necessary from the standpoint of the human mind. Without purpose, our psychology literally starts to destroy itself. Since Absolutism defines exactly what is right and good, mankind is able to pursue a common goal.
Absolutism has been practiced in some form or another for nearly all of human history. The belief that there is an objective moral truth and that our calling is to embody that objective truth is the basis for nearly every religion ever contrived. Obviously, the specifics of what objective moral truth is can vary greatly along with the process of how we seek it. However, the core concept remains the same: There is Truth, and that we are to embody it.
One of the disadvantages of the belief in a singular moral objective truth is that there are people who can use this to their own personal self-seeking advantage. This has been demonstrated throughout history. Instead of seeking the Truth for the betterment of themselves and others, people can use it as a tool of manipulation and power. History has shown that with a singular moral objective truth, also comes an ideal moral leader or group of people (anointed ones). These people often have the power to save or damn within the context of the belief. This power center often draws psychopaths to the forefront of these belief systems and with it, manipulation and oppression to people under their power both inside and outside the group.
The reason this kind of philosophy can be attractive to people is for the reasons that I stated above: People would rather avoid contemplating things they do not understand. Being possessed by an ideology affords a simplistic view of the world, and provides the illusion of control and safety. The fact that religious cults still exist and thrive is also a testament to the human desire to ignore the complexity of Truth and bask in the illusion of omniscience.
In the twentieth century, western culture had enough of these power centers and the oppression that was often wielded by people in authority. A desire to live in “freedom” arose. Questions began to be asked - Is objective moral truth even real? The ideas of Absolutism became so clouded, and corruption so prominent, that the whole concept started to be questioned.
Relativism
In the twentieth century, the concept of Moral Relativism arose as a cornerstone of our modern society. Moral Relativism is the belief that truth is subjective. Truth is found within yourself instead of outside yourself. This means that authority figures no longer hold the power to define morality. Instead, it is found within the individual.
The advantage to Relativism is that it does away with the moral hierarchy found in Absolutism, and also removes the corruption that tends to follow it. In a relativistic worldview, all people are viewed as equal with regard to moral standing. No one person can define objective moral truth for all people across space and time.
There is a justifiable desire to pull the rug out from under any foundation that supports abusive authority structures. Doing so breaks apart their power-dependent, monopoly on Truth which is the foundation of their control. Without it, they have no power.
However, Relativism also has some dangerous side effects.
Firstly, Relativism makes it impossible to prove that we as a human race are progressing in any positive direction. Without a Transcendent Truth, there is no ability to measure progress. The best we can say is that things have changed. It is impossible to say they have progressed in any particular direction. (negative or positive)
With the disappearance of the ability to measure progress, a brutal lack of meaning tends to follow shortly behind. While someone may be able to define what a meaningful life looks like to them specifically, it lacks any kind of backbone or assurance that it actually matters beyond their own mind. There is no way to prove that in 10 years you won't change your mind and render decades of your life a meaningless waste.
There is a frightening level of insignificance that manifests itself in the face of Relativism.
This insignificance can easily mature into Nihilism which is the belief that nothing matters at all, and that existence is pointless. This kind of thinking inevitably leads humanity down a path of self-destruction. All sense of necessity to negotiate and cooperate in society evaporates along with meaning.
What is left behind is nothing but the dead carcass of human purpose that we destroyed.
The concept of Relativism has only existed for a little over a century in its current form. The trail of carnage left by the philosophy has been experienced by those just a few generations before us. When compared with the length of time that Absolutism has defined the philosophy of cultures, Relativism is only in its infancy.
The Dilemma
This leaves us with a philosophical dilemma.
To believe that there is one objective truth is a good thing because it creates social order, and promotes a healthy striving for a goal. This happens on both the societal level as well as the individual one. However, we know from past experience that Absolutism, when applied in a religious context, it inevitably results in things like cults, spiritual abuse, and systematic murder of entire people groups. When applied on a political level, it can result in some of the greatest crimes that humanity has ever committed.
In an effort to free ourselves from the oppression of abusive Absolutism, Relativism took hold. By believing that no moral objective truth exists, we freed ourselves from the danger and bondage that comes from being under the influence of abusive power. By simply believing that there is no objective moral truth to submit to, humanity is free from the psychopaths and sociopaths that so often dominate places of power. Unfortunately, by throwing away objective truth, we plunge ourselves into a societal state of chaos. Instead of being under the influence of the monsters outside of us, we become oppressed by the monsters within. By killing that which gave us a stable society through common goals and assumptions about what is right and good, we unleash the demons in ourselves.
With the unbridled acceptance of Relativism, we drown the good that we were so badly trying to protect in a flood of insignificance.
Without a goal to run towards, society crumbles. If right and wrong are simply defined on a personal basis, the result for society is chaos. Worse yet, if people don't define what is true for themselves, then they are left with nothing at all. The result becomes Nihilism, which manifests a kind of Absolute Chaos. The ramifications to the mental health of those who believe such a doctrine cannot be understated.
Humans need a purpose for Being. If we don't have a purpose, we simply cease Being.
The Antidote
Since both philosophies have significant flaws, what is the answer? Do we just have to live with one or the other? Choose the lesser of two evils? Do we have to settle for philosophy not fully beneficial to all of mankind? Is there any way of combining the advantages of both perspectives while separating destruction that accompanies them?
I believe the answer is nested in the idea of the fallibility of the human mind. When we realize and fully accept this fallibility, it changes everything.
In a concise term: Humility changes everything.
The one thing I believe that is missing in both of these interpretations of morality is the fact that we are fallible beings.
I believe that the application of humility to both of these philosophies results in transforming the way that we are able to approach everything. Particularly that of objective truth.
There is a humility that is required for us to believe that our understanding of objective moral truth is imperfect. Just as I mentioned at the start of this article, our understanding of the world is constructed and therefore fallible. Without this understanding, we open ourselves up to unhindered, and corrupt Absolutism.
There is also humility that is required for us to rightly understand and recognize dangerous aspects of Relativism. My happiness is not the sole purpose of my existence. The only way we can extend the meaning of our life beyond the span of my years of living is to make an effect on others. Therefore for our life to have any lasting positive meaning after we die, our goals must be rooted in objective good outside of ourselves.
In order to protect ourselves from the negative consequences of Relativism, I believe we must embrace that moral truth is objective and that there is a right way to live.
In order to guard ourselves against the negative consequences of Absolutism, we must recognize human fallibility - that no one person is capable of fully and perfectly understanding objective truth. Just because we know that objective truth exists doesn't automatically mean that we are immune to our own fallibility. Human fallibility forces us to constantly re-evaluate our understanding to verify its soundness and consistency. Sometimes part of it will crumble and we have to be humble enough to admit it and rebuild. It’s part of being human.
Of course, this doesn't mean that we never take action on what we believe to be true. At some point, we need to stop the analysis and act on what we believe to be true - right or wrong. The important step is that we should hold our current understanding with a certain level of uncertainty. Not so much that we don’t act, but enough that our minds could be changed for the better without having to wade through a sea of cognitive dissonance.
When we are met with something that doesn't make sense, is our posture that of inerrant arrogance? Or is it one of humble, curious observation, looking for a place where we can learn something new?
Be Humble. Stay Curious.
-Josh