Conditioning of mind is inevitable…no knowledge can be gained without some priori assumption. (A priori)
Knowledge starts as a belief, an intrinsic instinct or sense data pointing towards certain information to be true. So our trust on our senses and perception is perhaps the first conditioning human mind goes through. Second we learn to trust what we are not directly acquainted through…knowledge by description. I believe that there was once a man named Alexander who almost conquered the world. I am however not acquainted with him, I know him through description, through accounts of those who had been acquainted to him. This belief is again a conditioning.
The point I am arriving that even a second order cybernetic if conscious will be inevitably conditioned to accept certain information as matter of fact, at least its own senses.
Second argument being that the conscious human mind with all its intellect knows so little about minds of lower organism, minds of animals and insects. Human mind when studying minds of other creatures say an ape can be considered akin to a second order cybernetics . There exist no visible reason for any kind of subjective bias creeping into such studies. Why then we are not able to analyze them / what makes us incapable of knowing what exactly goes around in their minds. How it then can we expect the second order cybernetics to is analyze and decipher a much more complex human mind?
I believe that its better we continue with human mind only continuing with the process of discovering its secret. Introspection and systematic observation and analysis has taken us this far…I hope it will take us the rest of the way too.
A fear that such a process cannot remove all the false belief and information that we have already got conditioned to…but this is something that we have to bear with…evolution is still a very slow process for me….and I don’t expect to see answers to this in my life time….but humanity will one day find answers to all that troubles it conscious, irrespective of the (survival) conditioning it has undergone
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Moral codes~ An over view
To begin with let us first arrive at a definition of morality. The first question is are we clear as to what it is? In the study of ethics morality has been defined from two perspectives, personal morality which is what you feel from your conscious as right and social morality which is what the society as a whole feels to be right.
While the origin of personal morals are very simple and pure dictated by only one basic dictum that is innate nobility of the human soul. A person may be a criminal but he will always know from deep with that he is wrong unless he is a psycho. Social morals however are not so, they evolved for the singular reason that is to control man, to tame him so as to allow sustenance of society. In its essence it too is noble, for society too is a need of humanity. We wouldn’t have evolved to this juncture without this structured organisation called society. If I am sitting here and typing this, it is because someone else is cooking for me. Not everybody can be thinker and scientist, but they all in their own ways help in sustenance of the society and evolution of mankind as a whole. It is however difficult to conclude from here that social morality is right in all its perspectives. The sad part of the society is that it was not formed best logic of will full cooperation and subordination, with reverence to human soul and its spirit. For most part of the history it has been dominated by mystiques and brutes, the purpose of the society was to serve mankind as a whole but it ended up serving a few who had the power and intellect to manipulate the rest.
It is for these lacunae in social morality that I consider personal morality as a far more superior guideline to judge whether you are right or wrong. There are many such arbitration in the social code of morality that has no logical support to its stance except some vague religious dictums or traditions that a society has been following from time immemorial. This article is an apt example of how unjust and harsh these codes of socio-religious morality can become.
Of the many such debatable issues of conflicting personal and social morality I would like to discuss here the issue of sexual morality. The sexual liberation of the modern times has been largely viewed as a serious moral degradation of the society at large. On the issue of sexuality and our sexual needs, first question is whether it is our need or of the society. I believe that all of us would agree that we have sex not just to produce kids, to refurbish the human resource. We have it because we need it, nature made us so. I have a deep reverence for nature, for I believe that any need that nature instilled in us has a purpose and is innately good. The society in its primitive from had put in a lot of restriction on sex. The first reason was If sexuality is liberated it would have killed the institution of marriage and therefore the society. Models of these societies were all very authoritarian/ tyrannical where men were expected to have a very high quotient of obedience. As we evolved we slowly moved on into more democratic and cooperative models of society where the quotient of personal responsibility and maturity and free volition outweighed any kind of socio-religious adherence or obedience. Many a moral codes of conduct however were just borrowed from the old model of society which obviously has no space for these individual freedom and volition
The new world order as was dreamt by philosophers and intellectuals is slowly coming to reality. It is for sure that if you refer to the old book of social morals we would find ourselves morally degraded, but if we believe that at least now we are living in a free world free society, then society must start existing for man rather than vice versa. We need to rework on our studies of ethics and come up with better a moral code which cater for needs of a man and gives him/ her freedom to seek what they desire as long as they are not harming the society at large. A society that respects man as an entity, his rationales his intellect and his judgement and the innate goodness in him.
There used to be a time when it was moral to burn down alive on your husband’s pyre. Is it today moral? Will all of us call our change in perspective as moral degradation? How can those women think of another man? What is wrong in free sexuality, if it is forced, it is a rape then it is wrong because you are violating the will and independence of another person. Is homosexuality wrong? I think no, not at all because it is volition of individuals, it is what they need what they desire. It is thus I feel that we need to rework on our books of ethics, make our moral codes more humane and man friendly.
While the origin of personal morals are very simple and pure dictated by only one basic dictum that is innate nobility of the human soul. A person may be a criminal but he will always know from deep with that he is wrong unless he is a psycho. Social morals however are not so, they evolved for the singular reason that is to control man, to tame him so as to allow sustenance of society. In its essence it too is noble, for society too is a need of humanity. We wouldn’t have evolved to this juncture without this structured organisation called society. If I am sitting here and typing this, it is because someone else is cooking for me. Not everybody can be thinker and scientist, but they all in their own ways help in sustenance of the society and evolution of mankind as a whole. It is however difficult to conclude from here that social morality is right in all its perspectives. The sad part of the society is that it was not formed best logic of will full cooperation and subordination, with reverence to human soul and its spirit. For most part of the history it has been dominated by mystiques and brutes, the purpose of the society was to serve mankind as a whole but it ended up serving a few who had the power and intellect to manipulate the rest.
It is for these lacunae in social morality that I consider personal morality as a far more superior guideline to judge whether you are right or wrong. There are many such arbitration in the social code of morality that has no logical support to its stance except some vague religious dictums or traditions that a society has been following from time immemorial. This article is an apt example of how unjust and harsh these codes of socio-religious morality can become.
Of the many such debatable issues of conflicting personal and social morality I would like to discuss here the issue of sexual morality. The sexual liberation of the modern times has been largely viewed as a serious moral degradation of the society at large. On the issue of sexuality and our sexual needs, first question is whether it is our need or of the society. I believe that all of us would agree that we have sex not just to produce kids, to refurbish the human resource. We have it because we need it, nature made us so. I have a deep reverence for nature, for I believe that any need that nature instilled in us has a purpose and is innately good. The society in its primitive from had put in a lot of restriction on sex. The first reason was If sexuality is liberated it would have killed the institution of marriage and therefore the society. Models of these societies were all very authoritarian/ tyrannical where men were expected to have a very high quotient of obedience. As we evolved we slowly moved on into more democratic and cooperative models of society where the quotient of personal responsibility and maturity and free volition outweighed any kind of socio-religious adherence or obedience. Many a moral codes of conduct however were just borrowed from the old model of society which obviously has no space for these individual freedom and volition
The new world order as was dreamt by philosophers and intellectuals is slowly coming to reality. It is for sure that if you refer to the old book of social morals we would find ourselves morally degraded, but if we believe that at least now we are living in a free world free society, then society must start existing for man rather than vice versa. We need to rework on our studies of ethics and come up with better a moral code which cater for needs of a man and gives him/ her freedom to seek what they desire as long as they are not harming the society at large. A society that respects man as an entity, his rationales his intellect and his judgement and the innate goodness in him.
There used to be a time when it was moral to burn down alive on your husband’s pyre. Is it today moral? Will all of us call our change in perspective as moral degradation? How can those women think of another man? What is wrong in free sexuality, if it is forced, it is a rape then it is wrong because you are violating the will and independence of another person. Is homosexuality wrong? I think no, not at all because it is volition of individuals, it is what they need what they desire. It is thus I feel that we need to rework on our books of ethics, make our moral codes more humane and man friendly.
Objectivism and Rational morality
Possibility of an objectivistic view point
It is singularly impossible for any observer to have an objectivistic view point. We all construct our set of realities based upon our perception and cognitive reasoning. The point being that the argument both of you put forth are very much subjective and it can be just debated or discussed but cannot be sold, preached or forced upon. It is however possible to have an unbiased and rational view point which is guided by reason and logic. Such a view point even though not objective from purely philosophic angle can however be construed as practical objectivity
Rational Morality
For both emotions and rationality we have only one reference point that is humans. Both are human and are displayed by human beings. What is proposed by the thread originator is a post conventional morality based on a rational approach. Most people never evolve into out of conventional morality which is guided by social dictums of right and wrong. Their never bother to think as to why and prefer always being guided by a set of rules that are socially acceptable and is thus good. Society and religion as an institution however is a product of human thinking and thus is not infallible. Its dictums of right and wrong thus are neither omniscient nor infallible. Morality I believe cannot be emotional it must have rational basis. It is thus not rational to attach and defend these set of rules…more so force them on fellow men as a divine decree.
Where does rational morality leads us ?
The movie I robot has a reference of such rational probabilistic morality. The robot prefers to save one life instead of two because he calculates a higher probability of survival in saving one. (Rational but not emotionally appealing decision). Again it takes over the control because it feels that humans are too emotional conflictive and prone to indulging in self destructive activity. Such a rational morality automatically approves mercy killing for instance a person who is no more productive and is terminally ill need not be pulled along in pain and agony for little more days, again rational but not emotionally appealing decision. In such instances the only guiding principle as I see is that individuals must be conscious about the subjectivity of their morality and thus not expect others to follow or confirm with what they believe. In the same way it must be accepted by a free society in general as long as it does not infringe into freedom and right of an another person
Role of Emotions in morality
It would be foolhardy to deny existence of emotions and their role in human affair. Most decisions are taken by humans under some kind of self serving bias and emotions. A study on effect of mood on reasoning revealed that both positive and negative moods severely hamper the reasoning ability of an individual. An emotional sense of goodness or a feel good factor however cannot be termed as morality. It won’t be at least prudent from a philosophical perspective to leave issues of morality of fluctuations of mood. At the same time it is neither feasible nor appropriate to apply the dictums of rational morality on masses in general. It has to be on a personal basis and may be practiced at own volition by an individual of appropriate intellectual and emotional maturity.
It is singularly impossible for any observer to have an objectivistic view point. We all construct our set of realities based upon our perception and cognitive reasoning. The point being that the argument both of you put forth are very much subjective and it can be just debated or discussed but cannot be sold, preached or forced upon. It is however possible to have an unbiased and rational view point which is guided by reason and logic. Such a view point even though not objective from purely philosophic angle can however be construed as practical objectivity
Rational Morality
For both emotions and rationality we have only one reference point that is humans. Both are human and are displayed by human beings. What is proposed by the thread originator is a post conventional morality based on a rational approach. Most people never evolve into out of conventional morality which is guided by social dictums of right and wrong. Their never bother to think as to why and prefer always being guided by a set of rules that are socially acceptable and is thus good. Society and religion as an institution however is a product of human thinking and thus is not infallible. Its dictums of right and wrong thus are neither omniscient nor infallible. Morality I believe cannot be emotional it must have rational basis. It is thus not rational to attach and defend these set of rules…more so force them on fellow men as a divine decree.
Where does rational morality leads us ?
The movie I robot has a reference of such rational probabilistic morality. The robot prefers to save one life instead of two because he calculates a higher probability of survival in saving one. (Rational but not emotionally appealing decision). Again it takes over the control because it feels that humans are too emotional conflictive and prone to indulging in self destructive activity. Such a rational morality automatically approves mercy killing for instance a person who is no more productive and is terminally ill need not be pulled along in pain and agony for little more days, again rational but not emotionally appealing decision. In such instances the only guiding principle as I see is that individuals must be conscious about the subjectivity of their morality and thus not expect others to follow or confirm with what they believe. In the same way it must be accepted by a free society in general as long as it does not infringe into freedom and right of an another person
Role of Emotions in morality
It would be foolhardy to deny existence of emotions and their role in human affair. Most decisions are taken by humans under some kind of self serving bias and emotions. A study on effect of mood on reasoning revealed that both positive and negative moods severely hamper the reasoning ability of an individual. An emotional sense of goodness or a feel good factor however cannot be termed as morality. It won’t be at least prudent from a philosophical perspective to leave issues of morality of fluctuations of mood. At the same time it is neither feasible nor appropriate to apply the dictums of rational morality on masses in general. It has to be on a personal basis and may be practiced at own volition by an individual of appropriate intellectual and emotional maturity.
A critique on communism
Communism in its elemental form is as proposed by Marx in his book Das Capital -A critique of political economy. It is in this corner stone that we need to find the flaws. It is in this root where the real decay lies. Communism poses to the visible eye many a glaring inadequacies but I would like to rather point out the flaws in the base philosophy itself.
Commodities ~ the problem of valuation
One of the basic problems that Marx encountered was how to assign value to commodities in a socialistic economic system. A non existent issue in a free market or Laizze faire Capitalistic model where in market determines the exchange value of commodity. In Marxist economic model however these exchange value had to be fixed for him to proceed with his economic theory. Even though Mark admitted variance of quality and type of labour made a grave error of assigning every commodity value in labour rather than demand and supply. I quote “For simplicity sake we shall hence forth account every kind of labour to be unskilled, simple labour; by this we do no more than save ourselves the trouble of making reductions” Economics needs mathematical precision his deduction to start with flawed theory. The fact being that society or state as an institution cannot determine the value of any commodity, especially so on the basis of labour. An accomplished painter may make a master piece in an hour’s time, and may end up painting a not so appealing painting after days of effort. What must be then the criterion that determines the prize of his paintings? In free market the demand shall determine the prize; the one that is more appealing shall fetch more. While as per Marxism the one that has taken more time and effort is automatically the costlier one. If we see any socialist set up the state tends to regulate the market. It is not what is demanded that is produced but what state deems as needed. They may end up producing guns and tanks when they needed to produce wheat
Wages and Labour problem
The first and foremost allegation against a free market from the socialist would be that who will ensure that labour gets the right wage. They will be underpaid and exploited by the capitalist if state does not regulate these issues. The fact being free market has no concept of exploitation. It was a feudalistic concept of bonded labour and slavery which were in prevalence when industrial revolution and capitalism came about. These concepts got tagged on and people still quote of exploitation while it is so visible that all capitalist countries have higher wages and living standards. Even in India no PSU or government organisation is paying its workers / labourers the way private institutions do. It however would be wrong that free market means higher pay. The market determines the prize be simple equations of supply and demand, if a labour is available at Rs 5/- then so shall it would get. There is no altruistic benevolence in these issues as socialist propose. What automatically happens is that such labour if not lucrative enough would soon start waning. It will automatically raise the demand and bring the equation to equilibrium. Communism instead fix the cost of the labour irrespective of the commodity being produced, even if the commodity is not in demand or the organisation is incurring loss the labour will still draw the same wage. Such an institution simply proliferates mediocrity and rots the economy.
Competition and quality
Instead of dwelling into the quality of commodities I would rather take the labour itself as a commodity. In a socialist economic model there exists no competition whatsoever. All men are equal and can produce equal, there is no scale that can differentiate two men and their work. They will be paid just the same for a type of work. Pay scale is fixed for a particular grade the years he has to put in before he gets promoted or gets an increment. The competition is literally nonexistent in the communist model. Capitalistic model is simply the way nature is, it works on one simple principle of survival of the fittest. Competition is an essential element of nature’s design, without it we could have never evolved and reached so far. Nature never made men equal…even if she did in some odd ways she wanted men to find where they differ and exploit their respective strengths in their struggle for existence. Assumption of all men being equal is thus the most essential flaw in socialist model.
Communism and Altruism
It is assumed more often than not that a socialistic model whether political or economical is more altruistically inclined and keeps in mind the interest and welfare of the downtrodden and the weak. Even though Das capital is more of an economic philosophy with almost negligible dwelling into any kind of socialistic altruism, its followers were able to move masses and bring about revolutions harping on these obscure aspects of the philosophy. I believe such agendas can only be political and not economical as no sane economist would ever suggest a model in which a large chunk of unproductive population is feeding on the hard work of a comparatively small work force. Such attempts of benevolence on the part of state have more often than not led to severe abuse of resources and worst, corruption in the part of the administration and state.
Disclaimer...
I must admit as I conclude that I am yet to read Das capital in complete depth my limited knowledge of economics has been a cause of hindrance in me doing so. I have however read the portion that are more theoretical in nature and found these fundamental flaws. The article has no bearing on my political inclination...It is but just one of the countless reflections of my philosophical odyssey
Commodities ~ the problem of valuation
One of the basic problems that Marx encountered was how to assign value to commodities in a socialistic economic system. A non existent issue in a free market or Laizze faire Capitalistic model where in market determines the exchange value of commodity. In Marxist economic model however these exchange value had to be fixed for him to proceed with his economic theory. Even though Mark admitted variance of quality and type of labour made a grave error of assigning every commodity value in labour rather than demand and supply. I quote “For simplicity sake we shall hence forth account every kind of labour to be unskilled, simple labour; by this we do no more than save ourselves the trouble of making reductions” Economics needs mathematical precision his deduction to start with flawed theory. The fact being that society or state as an institution cannot determine the value of any commodity, especially so on the basis of labour. An accomplished painter may make a master piece in an hour’s time, and may end up painting a not so appealing painting after days of effort. What must be then the criterion that determines the prize of his paintings? In free market the demand shall determine the prize; the one that is more appealing shall fetch more. While as per Marxism the one that has taken more time and effort is automatically the costlier one. If we see any socialist set up the state tends to regulate the market. It is not what is demanded that is produced but what state deems as needed. They may end up producing guns and tanks when they needed to produce wheat
Wages and Labour problem
The first and foremost allegation against a free market from the socialist would be that who will ensure that labour gets the right wage. They will be underpaid and exploited by the capitalist if state does not regulate these issues. The fact being free market has no concept of exploitation. It was a feudalistic concept of bonded labour and slavery which were in prevalence when industrial revolution and capitalism came about. These concepts got tagged on and people still quote of exploitation while it is so visible that all capitalist countries have higher wages and living standards. Even in India no PSU or government organisation is paying its workers / labourers the way private institutions do. It however would be wrong that free market means higher pay. The market determines the prize be simple equations of supply and demand, if a labour is available at Rs 5/- then so shall it would get. There is no altruistic benevolence in these issues as socialist propose. What automatically happens is that such labour if not lucrative enough would soon start waning. It will automatically raise the demand and bring the equation to equilibrium. Communism instead fix the cost of the labour irrespective of the commodity being produced, even if the commodity is not in demand or the organisation is incurring loss the labour will still draw the same wage. Such an institution simply proliferates mediocrity and rots the economy.
Competition and quality
Instead of dwelling into the quality of commodities I would rather take the labour itself as a commodity. In a socialist economic model there exists no competition whatsoever. All men are equal and can produce equal, there is no scale that can differentiate two men and their work. They will be paid just the same for a type of work. Pay scale is fixed for a particular grade the years he has to put in before he gets promoted or gets an increment. The competition is literally nonexistent in the communist model. Capitalistic model is simply the way nature is, it works on one simple principle of survival of the fittest. Competition is an essential element of nature’s design, without it we could have never evolved and reached so far. Nature never made men equal…even if she did in some odd ways she wanted men to find where they differ and exploit their respective strengths in their struggle for existence. Assumption of all men being equal is thus the most essential flaw in socialist model.
Communism and Altruism
It is assumed more often than not that a socialistic model whether political or economical is more altruistically inclined and keeps in mind the interest and welfare of the downtrodden and the weak. Even though Das capital is more of an economic philosophy with almost negligible dwelling into any kind of socialistic altruism, its followers were able to move masses and bring about revolutions harping on these obscure aspects of the philosophy. I believe such agendas can only be political and not economical as no sane economist would ever suggest a model in which a large chunk of unproductive population is feeding on the hard work of a comparatively small work force. Such attempts of benevolence on the part of state have more often than not led to severe abuse of resources and worst, corruption in the part of the administration and state.
Disclaimer...
I must admit as I conclude that I am yet to read Das capital in complete depth my limited knowledge of economics has been a cause of hindrance in me doing so. I have however read the portion that are more theoretical in nature and found these fundamental flaws. The article has no bearing on my political inclination...It is but just one of the countless reflections of my philosophical odyssey
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
