The basic form of my question is: Is there any validity in the claim that masculinity is equivalent to, or closely related to, sexism, seemingly made by the authors of 'Ten Theories of Human Nature'?
While I think that there is some link between the two concepts (although that does not necessarily have to remain the case) they are not by any means equivalent. Sexism or chauvinism means discrimination against someone on the basis of their sex (or gender; but that is something of a technicality). In this context, and in most contexts in which it appears in contemporary Western society, it means discrimination against women. Masculinity merely refers to those qualities associated with men, of which sexism is not (or at least, should not be) one.
Masculinity does have some links to sexism, in that historically women have been discriminated against on the basis of their gender by men, rather than by other women or by people who identify as neither of the two common genders. Furthermore, the men doing the most discriminating have typically been those who are more classically masculine.
However, this does not mean that masculinity cannot exist without the presence of chauvinism. It is possible for a man to enjoy hunting and fishing, play sports, work out, and possess a large beard (all qualities usually associated with masculinity) yet be extremely supportive of equality for all genders. Also, sexism can exist without masculinity - a man could be quiet and reserved, and defer to other men in most matters, yet still discriminate against women. There is also the issue of sexism working in the opposite direction from the way people usually envision it, benefiting women at the expense of men; but that is not the type of sexism presented by Confucius, so I shall not address it in this post.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Families: Personal Experiences vs. Societal Conceptions
In class on Friday we discussed the role of family in shaping a person's morality and ability to empathize with others. While I disagreed with much of what was said directly, it did help me to create a number of similar theories which I prefer. It may be that these theories were implied in what David Kenneth Johnson was saying - however, I've found it helpful to clarify and elaborate my conceptions of this idea.
So - family typically aids children in developing relationships with others, through the idea of parents acting as role models. While children also learn to relate to others in a family context, they do not usually develop serious empathy and understanding of others' feelings until rather later than infancy, by which time they are interacting with other children to whom they are not related. Thus, I conjecture that parents' ability to serve as role models is the more important type of influence here.
Children become aware of society's idea of what a family should be at a very early age. Even if their own families do not fit this model, they are often aware of the difference and which family model is considered superior. They gain knowledge of this ideal family model through many different sources; watching other families in real life, reading about or otherwise learning of fictional families, and even seeing their own (possibly dysfunctional) families express expectations and opinions on what a family should be, regardless of whether or not they fit that model.
Furthermore, children do perceive emotions from an early age. If they observe that their parents fight all the time and seem to be generally unhappy, they may wish to find other adults to serve as role models, or even use their own parents as inverse role models of a sort; they may attempt to do the exact opposite of what their parents are doing.
Overall, the concept I am trying to communicate is that I think societal conception of family can be of greater influence even on the morality of individuals than personal experiences with biological relations. After all, if one was primarily influenced by one's own family, then everyone from happy families would be happy and act morally, and everyone from broken or unhappy families would have problems - they would follow their parents' examples and become alcoholic, or abusive, or addicted to drugs, or narrow-minded, etc.
P.S. Again, I seem to have posted rather more text than I am strictly supposed to. Also I am now apparently writing six posts for one week. I apologize (again)! This particular subject is one which greatly interests me.
So - family typically aids children in developing relationships with others, through the idea of parents acting as role models. While children also learn to relate to others in a family context, they do not usually develop serious empathy and understanding of others' feelings until rather later than infancy, by which time they are interacting with other children to whom they are not related. Thus, I conjecture that parents' ability to serve as role models is the more important type of influence here.
Children become aware of society's idea of what a family should be at a very early age. Even if their own families do not fit this model, they are often aware of the difference and which family model is considered superior. They gain knowledge of this ideal family model through many different sources; watching other families in real life, reading about or otherwise learning of fictional families, and even seeing their own (possibly dysfunctional) families express expectations and opinions on what a family should be, regardless of whether or not they fit that model.
Furthermore, children do perceive emotions from an early age. If they observe that their parents fight all the time and seem to be generally unhappy, they may wish to find other adults to serve as role models, or even use their own parents as inverse role models of a sort; they may attempt to do the exact opposite of what their parents are doing.
Overall, the concept I am trying to communicate is that I think societal conception of family can be of greater influence even on the morality of individuals than personal experiences with biological relations. After all, if one was primarily influenced by one's own family, then everyone from happy families would be happy and act morally, and everyone from broken or unhappy families would have problems - they would follow their parents' examples and become alcoholic, or abusive, or addicted to drugs, or narrow-minded, etc.
P.S. Again, I seem to have posted rather more text than I am strictly supposed to. Also I am now apparently writing six posts for one week. I apologize (again)! This particular subject is one which greatly interests me.
Q&A 1, First Answer
The basic form of the first question I wrote for my Q&A is: Would Confucius still advocate children following their parents' ways if said parents did not conform to Confucian standards of morality?
Clearly, I can't know what Confucius would have answered, but based off what I have read of his philosophy, I can make an educated guess. I think that in a case such as the one outlined above, Confucius would likely have advised a child (let us say a son, as that is the only kind of child he mentions in reference to this rule) to have followed in his parent's (let us say father's) ways as far as possible without directly flouting the rules of morality. For example, if his father was a farmer who selfishly guarded the best source of water in an area, not letting the neighbors (also farmers) have access to it, then when the son inherited the farm he would continue to farm there, thus following his father's ways in regards to career. However, he would be generous with the water source, thus practicing benevolence towards his neighbors.
When analysing this question, I was at first tempted to say that Confucius would have advised the son to renounce his father's ways completely, and devote himself to practicing benevolence. However, upon further thought I realised that such an answer was really my own opinion, influenced by the modern culture in which I live and my own set of morals, leaking through and contaminating my conjectures about Confucius. Confucius lived in a very, very different culture, one which emphasized respect for elders and obedience to authority. It seems more likely that he would have suggested tempering benevolence with obedience, seeking to strike a balance rather than simply choose one path over another.
Clearly, I can't know what Confucius would have answered, but based off what I have read of his philosophy, I can make an educated guess. I think that in a case such as the one outlined above, Confucius would likely have advised a child (let us say a son, as that is the only kind of child he mentions in reference to this rule) to have followed in his parent's (let us say father's) ways as far as possible without directly flouting the rules of morality. For example, if his father was a farmer who selfishly guarded the best source of water in an area, not letting the neighbors (also farmers) have access to it, then when the son inherited the farm he would continue to farm there, thus following his father's ways in regards to career. However, he would be generous with the water source, thus practicing benevolence towards his neighbors.
When analysing this question, I was at first tempted to say that Confucius would have advised the son to renounce his father's ways completely, and devote himself to practicing benevolence. However, upon further thought I realised that such an answer was really my own opinion, influenced by the modern culture in which I live and my own set of morals, leaking through and contaminating my conjectures about Confucius. Confucius lived in a very, very different culture, one which emphasized respect for elders and obedience to authority. It seems more likely that he would have suggested tempering benevolence with obedience, seeking to strike a balance rather than simply choose one path over another.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Government and Religion - Ethical Guidelines
In Wednesday's class, we discussed the necessity (or lack thereof) of religion in providing moral guidelines for people. By my view, religion is not necessary for morality. This is because, due to the process of evolution, any traits which are severely detrimental to the survival of the species will have been, if not entirely eliminated, at least weeded out to the point that they are quite uncommon. Alternately, if one does believe in the existence of a divine being, moral guidelines are present already in humanity due to a 'divine spark', and defying these guidelines is a conscious action one must take. Thus, whether one believes that God is a deity or just a name for certain elements of one's own psyche, the fact remains that (most) people are aware of what actions are 'morally correct', regardless of their religious views.
This is not to say that people do not defy those guidelines, whether due to a flaw in their inherited sense of morality, exceptional circumstances, or 'unnatural' (in this case meaning not present when evolution initially produced these innate moral guidelines) situations such as huge communities (countries, for example), and it is there that I think religion can have a viable use (not to say that religion is not a valid choice otherwise; the mistake only comes when one believes that it is necessary to live morally). By appealing to the selfish side of human nature through use of the concept of heaven and hell, or of some other reward/punishment system, one can head off 'morally incorrect' actions (which people typically take because of that very side of their natures).
However, religion also comes with a large load of problems, such as antiquated traditions and guidelines which are not applicable after time has passed but continue to be applied because they become enshrined, elements which may not apply equally to everyone in any situation, and bias towards those who choose not to follow the same faith. By gaining moral guidelines from one's own mind, having faith in oneself rather than a deity, so to speak, one can gain the same results without the negative features inherent in dogmatic religious belief. Unfortunately, in any situation where there is a large concentration of humans, it seems that at least one person (again, due to some psychological issue or exceptional circumstance) will defy their innate morality, and in doing so cause harm to others. While religion can help prevent this, there is another alternative which, although still not ideal, may currently be the most practical system to provide the most benefit to those utilizing it.
This alternative is government. Not all governments are equal, however. In order to achieve its purpose, a government must provide moral guidelines to those who defy their own innate sense of morality. This renders systems like free-market capitalism virtually useless, as the system just mentioned relies on humanity's innate morality to produce the most benefit for all concerned. In this way, it might as well not be there at all. Other systems, particularly moderate forms of socialism, seem more practical to me. Ideally, of course, humanity will eventually develop to the point where no government at all is necessary. Unfortunately, I do not think that we are even close to achieving that eventual goal at this time.
P.S. I apologize for the ridiculous length of this post; I was on a roll here. I shall attempt to limit future posts to a more reasonable size.
This is not to say that people do not defy those guidelines, whether due to a flaw in their inherited sense of morality, exceptional circumstances, or 'unnatural' (in this case meaning not present when evolution initially produced these innate moral guidelines) situations such as huge communities (countries, for example), and it is there that I think religion can have a viable use (not to say that religion is not a valid choice otherwise; the mistake only comes when one believes that it is necessary to live morally). By appealing to the selfish side of human nature through use of the concept of heaven and hell, or of some other reward/punishment system, one can head off 'morally incorrect' actions (which people typically take because of that very side of their natures).
However, religion also comes with a large load of problems, such as antiquated traditions and guidelines which are not applicable after time has passed but continue to be applied because they become enshrined, elements which may not apply equally to everyone in any situation, and bias towards those who choose not to follow the same faith. By gaining moral guidelines from one's own mind, having faith in oneself rather than a deity, so to speak, one can gain the same results without the negative features inherent in dogmatic religious belief. Unfortunately, in any situation where there is a large concentration of humans, it seems that at least one person (again, due to some psychological issue or exceptional circumstance) will defy their innate morality, and in doing so cause harm to others. While religion can help prevent this, there is another alternative which, although still not ideal, may currently be the most practical system to provide the most benefit to those utilizing it.
This alternative is government. Not all governments are equal, however. In order to achieve its purpose, a government must provide moral guidelines to those who defy their own innate sense of morality. This renders systems like free-market capitalism virtually useless, as the system just mentioned relies on humanity's innate morality to produce the most benefit for all concerned. In this way, it might as well not be there at all. Other systems, particularly moderate forms of socialism, seem more practical to me. Ideally, of course, humanity will eventually develop to the point where no government at all is necessary. Unfortunately, I do not think that we are even close to achieving that eventual goal at this time.
P.S. I apologize for the ridiculous length of this post; I was on a roll here. I shall attempt to limit future posts to a more reasonable size.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Response: Free Will
In response to Justine Cozza's post "Response to Intro and Ch.1 of the Ten Theories of Human Nature"
(January 22, 2012):
I would agree that conscious thought does determine, through the choices it results in us making, the paths of our lives. However, I do not necessarily agree that this negates the concept of destiny/fate (or, in a more secular sense, pre-determined sequences of events). Could one not argue that, either by divine engineering or by genetic predisposition, one's choices are already made? By this I mean that each person, according to their nature, will under a certain set of circumstances make one, and only one, choice. This is in opposition to the concept of free will; however, in practical terms it makes no difference. As no one knows for certain what choice they are predisposed to make, they have to make the choice as if by their own free will. In the end, there is only one of the available choices that they are capable of making, but prior to making said choice they do not know which it is.
(January 22, 2012):
I would agree that conscious thought does determine, through the choices it results in us making, the paths of our lives. However, I do not necessarily agree that this negates the concept of destiny/fate (or, in a more secular sense, pre-determined sequences of events). Could one not argue that, either by divine engineering or by genetic predisposition, one's choices are already made? By this I mean that each person, according to their nature, will under a certain set of circumstances make one, and only one, choice. This is in opposition to the concept of free will; however, in practical terms it makes no difference. As no one knows for certain what choice they are predisposed to make, they have to make the choice as if by their own free will. In the end, there is only one of the available choices that they are capable of making, but prior to making said choice they do not know which it is.
Annoying Solutions: The Problem of Evil
Of the many proposed solutions for the problem of evil, perhaps the most annoying is the argument that God, as an omnipotent, omniscient entity, has plans that we, as mere humans, cannot comprehend. Despite the irritatingly excuse-like nature of this argument, it is the only one which I have heard of or thought of which is not disprovable. It is true that things exist which are currently impossible for the human mind to comprehend - for example, the concept of infinity as exemplified by an endless number, or dimensions more than the three (or, possibly, four) in which we dwell. It seems erroneous to imagine that ethics are somehow exempt from this type of fallibility; there may be ethical issues of which we cannot conceive either, and the problem of evil's solution (if indeed there is a solution) may make use of some of these.
Other proposed solutions, while perhaps less annoying and initially more valid-seeming, all fall short. The argument that evil is necessary in order to give humans free will in invalid because, while logically speaking one may say that evil (or at the least, lesser good) is necessary for free will, God (being, again, omnipotent) ought to be able to create free will WITHOUT necessitating choice. Yes, this is a paradox, but paradoxes should pose no problem for an omnipotent being. Another popular argument is that evil is not really evil, and that our perceptions of it are simply flawed. Again, this argument does not hold up, because could God not have created beings with more accurate perceptions?
There are other arguments as well which I will not go into here, due to space limitations, but all of them fall similarly short of the mark as far as dispelling the problem of evil is concerned. The first argument, then, is the solution; and we must either accept it, or discount the existence of God entirely. This latter may not be a bad thing, and atheism is certainly a valid and sensible religious (or rather, irreligious) choice, but then so are many (moderate) religious viewpoints, as is agnosticism. In the end, it is up to the individual person to decide what to believe.
Other proposed solutions, while perhaps less annoying and initially more valid-seeming, all fall short. The argument that evil is necessary in order to give humans free will in invalid because, while logically speaking one may say that evil (or at the least, lesser good) is necessary for free will, God (being, again, omnipotent) ought to be able to create free will WITHOUT necessitating choice. Yes, this is a paradox, but paradoxes should pose no problem for an omnipotent being. Another popular argument is that evil is not really evil, and that our perceptions of it are simply flawed. Again, this argument does not hold up, because could God not have created beings with more accurate perceptions?
There are other arguments as well which I will not go into here, due to space limitations, but all of them fall similarly short of the mark as far as dispelling the problem of evil is concerned. The first argument, then, is the solution; and we must either accept it, or discount the existence of God entirely. This latter may not be a bad thing, and atheism is certainly a valid and sensible religious (or rather, irreligious) choice, but then so are many (moderate) religious viewpoints, as is agnosticism. In the end, it is up to the individual person to decide what to believe.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)