Dear TOKers,
Just wanted to say there is a cool discussion happening on Alexander Bard's Intellectual Deep Web list. It has to do with the nature of good and evil. I thought I would share what I just posted.
>>>
Let me chime in and say that if you metaphorically eat off of the Tree of Knowledge System,<https://www.gregghenriques.com/uploads/2/4/3/6/24368778/unifiedtheory.pdf> you realize that Good and Evil are what the language system identifies as "justifications". Of course, human laws and scientific knowledge are also justification systems, so by calling them "justifications" I don't want to minimize them (i.e., don't substitute the word 'rationalization' here). A sadistic psychopath who enjoys raping women is (or more perhaps accurately does) evil in my language-moral-ethical system. More specifically, from a Tree of Knowledge perspective, Good and Evil are "fourth dimensional entities" that exist at the level of Cultural justification. That is, five million years ago, good and evil did not exist in the universe (given our current understanding). In terms of their emergent evolutionary history, good and evil hare human social constructions that are tied to pleasure and pain, which exists in the animal/mental third dimension of complexity. Nonhuman animals suffer and even love, but they don't commit acts of good and evil (nor do they have ethical systems).
Connecting more directly to the present discussion, I make the distinction between moral/ethical absolutism and moral/ethical universalism (I know Alexander Bard makes a strong distinction between ethical and moral; I will avoid that distinction here and collapse across the terms). A moral/ethical absolutist position views Good/Light/Heavenly forces as real entities that permeate the universe (in contrast to Evil/Dark/Hellish forces) independent of human knowers. Think Star Wars, for example. The Dark Side of the Force is not a human construction in that worldview.
In the Tree of Knowledge language system, my judgment that a sadistic psychopath is evil is grounded on a constructed, value-based justification system. That is, I can't in theory discover that "in reality" such actions are "good". They are defined as "evil" by the system of justification I operate off of (i.e., the exemplar of evil being the state of deriving pleasure from and working toward other people's suffering as the desired outcome). My particular approach to moral universalism advocates for the enhancement of three "big" values: (1) the dignity of human persons; (2) well-being; and (3) integrity. Hence, my "ultimate justification" is to be that which enhances dignity and well-being with integrity. In terms of more classic general value theory, these broadly correspond to Beauty, Goodness and Truth. (See https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-knowledge/201201/finding-our-moral-compass)
I should note that being a moral universalist also means I am not a moral relativist. The reason is because I argue there are "meta" cultural positions of justification that transcend specific cultural contexts. Indeed, that argument part of what legitimizes my quest for a post postmodern grand meta-narrative.
Best,
Gregg
___________________________________________
Gregg Henriques, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Graduate Psychology
216 Johnston Hall
MSC 7401
James Madison University
Harrisonburg, VA 22807
(540) 568-7857 (phone)
(540) 568-4747 (fax)
Be that which enhances dignity and well-being with integrity.
Check out my Theory of Knowledge blog at Psychology Today at:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/theory-knowledge
Check out my webpage at:
www.gregghenriques.com<http://www.gregghenriques.com>
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
|
