PHILOSOPHY: THE SUMMATION OF MANS WISDOM
“Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.” Colossians 2:8
Given the current state of division within our nation, and around the world, one might ask the most obvious question, which Rodney King once posed, “Why can’t we all just get along?” Especially in our own nation, things that once united us, now seem to be lightning rods of division; i.e. the National Anthem, patriotism, historical figures and documents, etc., and the things which have always divided us, are now more polarizing than ever before. Unfortunately, our traditional systems of resolving these conflicts, seem more inadequate than at any time in history. Consequently, as ethical dilemmas go, there is none more profound than the fact that, after nearly 4,000 years of man pursuing the, “Love of Wisdom” and philosophical understanding, we still don’t seem to be any closer to reaching a universal consensus about exactly what that even means, much less a collective agreement of how we can comprehensively apply what we’ve learned thus far, to the large scale ethical and moral predicaments which confront us.
In fact, with the advent of the latest re-imaginations of philosophic thought; i.e. Power Feminism, Liberation Theology, and progressive socialism, we almost seem to be going in the opposite direction now, even further away from any coherent systems of ethical and moral interpretation, much less, peace on earth, good will toward men. For the subjectivist and even the more liberal objectivist, who have redefined the term to mean whatever they want it to – this does not seem to present any significant problems, and is even predicted within their models.
However, for the truly objectivist thinker who believes in Truth with a capital “T”, the failure to arrive at a more substantive foundation, after all this time, should be a point of bewilderment and frustration! If the stated goal was to pursue a universal application of wisdom and knowledge… we certainly haven’t found it yet! However, for those who have placed their faith and trust in the Truth found in Scripture, the words of the Apostle Paul have never rung clearer, as he cautioned, “Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.”[i]
Still, while philosophy may not be able to provide a, one-size-fits-all solution to our ethical and moral problems in the world, it does provide us with some excellent tools with which we may analyze, categorize and at least attempt to resolve these issues with the best possible outcomes for those involved. Therefore, I would first like to provide a macro-level, rather negative critique the of the field of philosophical ethics, and argue that; after thousands of years of pursuing philosophic understanding, ethical research and theoretical development, it has failed to deliver on these three most basic of unifying achievements:
1. Agreement upon a universal description and normative understanding of what ethical wisdom and moral behavior should be.
2. Reach a unanimous consensus for the application of that wisdom to worldwide ethical and moral circumstances which confronts us.
3. Arrive at a philosophical, “theory of everything”, which can unite mankind, at least in theory, behind an objective answer to the age-old question it has been asking, i.e. “Why be moral?”
I will also temper that critique with a micro-level, more positive valuation of the benefits of philosophical ethics to society, and highlight the constructive aspects of ethical theory and practice. I will illustrate this thesis throughout by examining some of the contrasting and often conflicting ethical theories of philosophy themselves.
A Failure to Synthesize: “Why be moral?”
The monumental task of achieving the unifying goals outlined in the thesis above, seems quite improbable at best; indeed, one might even say, impossible! Now, you may already be saying, “This is a straw-man argument and this was never the intent of philosophy!” But wait a moment; have we not been asking for these questions to be answered all along, and have not philosophers through the centuries assured us that indeed they could answer them adequately? Questions such as, “Why be moral? What is truth? What is good? What is evil? Why are we here? What is the meaning of life?”, etc. Obviously, since these questions have not, and probably never will be sufficiently answered by philosophy, given the difficulties represented by them; wouldn’t it be fair to say that the discipline itself should be called into question, as to its veracity, effectiveness, and prestigious reputation as a repository of ultimate truth?
Here's the major dilemma: After taking your fair share of; philosophy, worldview, ethics, and apologetics type courses, you will always wind up in the same place. As the courses proceed, they build and build upon a theme, in which each new theory and principle incorporates some novel aspect of philosophic thought which others in the past had left out or not considered fully enough, (i.e. reason, virtue, consequences, etc.). This is what I would consider the, positive micro-level of philosophy of which I spoke. Toward the end of the course however, after sensing that all of these breakthroughs in wisdom might lead eventually to some pinnacle or summit of understanding, you begin to have the sinking sensation that you may not wind up with a, 'philosophical theory of everything' after all.
The summation of all of man's wisdom and reason which you had been waiting for, is quickly slipping from your grasp, being drug back down into the abyss, by endless theoretical rabbit trails and digressions. It all slowly devolves into a, "He said, she said", debate between philosophers who vehemently disagree with each other, based solely upon their own predetermined biases and petty ideological rationales. This is the caustic and inconvenient truth behind the macro-level of philosophy where, in the final analysis, you are left with the same questions you started with; i.e. "Why be moral? What is truth? What is good? What is evil? Why are we here?", etc. In the end, you discover that one philosopher’s opinions are considered just as valid as another, and you are obligated to chose sides, based on what you probably already believe most likely, but now you discover that someone has clearly defined and labeled it for your convenience.
Modern philosophers have repeatedly taken us all the way back to the life affirming and flourishing ideas of Socrates and Aristotle, as well as taking us to the edge of our darkest nihilistic nightmares of existentialism. Some have posited that, “There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy.”[ii] How can we possibly reconcile that with the positive aspirations of Plato and Socrates? The existentialist, John Fowles once said, “I think we are just insects, we live a bit and then die and that’s the lot. There’s no mercy in things. There’s not even a great beyond. There’s nothing!”[iii] But if that is the case, why even bother with ethics, with morality, and even life itself? Every one of us should just immediately cast off our altruistic and virtue based tendencies and dive headlong into the hedonistic lifestyles of our wildest imaginations, if those philosophers are correct.
Friedrich Nietzsche, still a darling of the philosophical elite, despised the ethics of mercy and empathy, seething that, “Virtue is …merely an honorable form of stupidity…”[iv] So you see, these are not just minor discrepancies and differences of opinion; they are major structural incongruities that make a unifying synthesis of ethical thought, virtually unattainable! Some believe that these significant disparities in the way people think and reason have little to do with reason and rationality though, citing that, “Recent advances in the neurosciences have established an irrefutable fact: Human beings are emotional, not rational. …The truth is that we are 98 percent emotional and about two percent rational.”[v]
So could it be that all of these divergences of opinion in philosophical thought arise not from a higher state of rational analysis, as we have been led to believe, but rather from the more base, guttural, and carnal motivations of our emotional psyche? This would better explain why we have come up with so many variances in our pursuit of wisdom, beyond merely the rational and empirical approaches that have been suggested in the past. It also supports the time honored biblical view that mankind has always done whatever, “…was right in his own eyes.”[vi] Albert Camus, a French journalist who was a, “…primary source of modern existentialist thought.”[vii] Takes this freedom of thought to its rational conclusion by saying, “If we believe in nothing, if nothing has any meaning and if we can affirm no values whatsoever, then everything is possible and nothing has any importance.”[viii]
In other words, when ethical questions are asked, such as, “Should the possible extinction of the white spotted owl in Oregon and Washington be more important than the many jobs of loggers that would be lost if pro-environmental laws were passed in state and national legislatures?", macro-ethics would say, “How can philosophy and ethics even attempt a valid and effective distinction in such a case, when the conflicting ethical theories automatically invalidate each other’s arguments? This is hardly scientific, and definitely not objective truth! If I make the decision to allow the bird to become extinct, or to put the loggers out of work, can I be proven wrong scientifically? Who can say, and according to which theory would I be considered wrong or right? Why does it even matter anyway, since none of this is real and we should all just kill ourselves, because life isn’t even worth living, according to another competing ethical theory on the matter?
In taking a micro-level approach to this however, we can readily see the utility of the various philosophical theories in helping us to identify and describe the ethical problems which exist in a given situation, categorize the possible consequences, based on conceivable actions that might be suggested, and propose some feasibility plans for resolving the problem, with the most satisfactory results for everyone involved. We can all appreciate these distinctions and subtleties that ethical theories offer, because they can help us navigate through the difficult situations in society to some degree, but they usually work best when they are merely descriptive of problems and solutions, and do not take on the role of being normative or prescribing right or wrong actions. This is where the problems begin to manifest themselves, at the crossroads between descriptive and normative philosophy; i.e. either describing ethical conduct or prescribing moral solutions.
As the great German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer, wrote in his seminal work, The Failure of Philosophy, “…instead of confining himself to the better understanding of the world as given in experience, the philosopher has aspired to pass at one bound beyond it, in the hope of discovering the last foundation of all existence and the eternal relations of things. Now these are matters which our intellect is quite incapable of grasping.”[ix] Try as we might to tackle the really big, macro-level problems in the world, let alone the metaphysical questions of our very existence, armed merely with our own intellect, we have failed miserably and often.
A book came out just recently that addresses these very issues entitled, The Failures of Ethics: Confronting the Holocaust, Genocide, and Other Mass Atrocities, by John K. Roth. Far from backing away from this glaring problem within the ranks of philosophic academia, Roth hits it dead on by recognizing that, “Our senses of moral and religious authority have been fragmented and weakened by the accumulated ruins of history and the depersonalized advances of civilization that have taken us from a bloody twentieth century into an immensely problematic twenty-first.”[x] That’s an interesting interpretation of why our ethical theories have failed us, especially when they were most needed, but have we ever not been fragmented ethically and morally weak in the face of atrocities throughout history? Our ethical behavior surely doesn’t get any better prior to the twentieth century, only infinitely worse!
So in conclusion, it is clear to see that philosophical ethics does provide a valuable insight into the day to day, micro-level, descriptive realms of moral behavior, but that it struggles mightily with the big picture, macro-level normative resolutions of ethical dilemmas and existential matters. This can be demonstrated easily by the simple fact that because, "Human beings are emotional, and not rational…”, the unifying principle of a reaching a collective understanding of ethical wisdom and moral behavior, and a consensus of how that wisdom should be applied, i.e. a philosophical “theory of everything”, has never and will never be achieved. Clearly, man has done, and will always do what is right in his own eyes, no matter what the philosophers, and even theologians, say to the contrary!
As a Bible-believing Christian, and a pastor who passionately believes that God's word is a representation of the only Absolute, Objective, and Eternal TRUTH, that exists in the universe, and that all other truth flows naturally from it; I find it troubling that after failing to even come close to answering its own fundamental question after 4,000 years of effort, a question which the Bible can answer quite easily and effectively; secular philosophers and ethicists have the audacity to declare that an, "Absolutist" understanding of God's word is, not only wrong, intolerant, and sexually repressive, but it’s also backward and foolish.
Why? Because in their opinion, and here is the point; thanks to secular philosophy, which has diligently striven to destroy the Christian faith and the Bible for hundreds, if not thousands of years, and throw their tattered remains onto the theoretical trash heap of history, Christianity and the Bible, has long ago been discredited by them, and now they alone claim to possess the exclusive rights to all of the wisdom and ethical knowledge in the universe. The problem is, they don't have all the answers, as illustrated above, but the Bible boldly answers that question which they are so woefully unable to answer themselves; i.e. "Why be moral?", the problem is, people just don't like the answer!
What is the answer you ask? I'll tell you! Because, "...there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account." (Hebrews 4:13)
By Pastor Glen Mustian
Works Cited:
[i] Colossians 2:8. NKJV New King James Version.
Holy Bible. Thomas Nelson. Nashville, TN: 2000. Print.
[ii] https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-most-fundamental-philosophical-question
[iii] Fowles,
John. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/nihilism
[iv] Nietzsche,
Friedrich. The Will to Power, https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/nihilism
[v] Noll,
Douglas E. Esq. https://www.mediate.com/articles/noll9.cfm
[vi] Judges 17:6.
NKJV New King James Version. Holy Bible. Thomas Nelson. Nashville, TN: 2000.
Print.
[vii]
Calmus, Albert. https://www.thoughtco.com/albert-camus-biography-249944
[viii] Calmus,
Albert. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/nihilism
[ix] Schopenhauer,
Arthur. The Failure of Philosophy. https://www.philosophybasics.com/philosophers_schopenhauer.html
[x] Roth,
John. The Failures of Ethics: Confronting the Holocaust, Genocide, and Other
Mass Atrocities. Oxford University Press UK (2015)
