I'm not interested in debating the merits of whether or not activities should have purpose. I am operating on the presumption that almost all of them do even if that purpose is unstated or unknown. So, if almost all human activities have a purpose, it follows that in the context of that activity some actions would help to achieve that purpose and some actions could undermine that purpose.
For example, if my purpose is to make a tasty dinner and I burn the rice I am cooking for that purpose, I undermine that purpose. I haven't made the purpose unattainable by any means. I simply have failed to achieve it with the activity I had chosen to achieve it with. Thus, I must try again or try something different if I intend to achieve that goal.
This is all pretty basic, I think. That is why it may surprise you that I think this concept should be the underpinning of all ethics. I don't mean just the personal ethics, either. Of course, it is too broad to be the entire field by itself, but I think it is a meaningful start.
Ethics, from this perspective, is easy to imagine in the context of any major sport. Let's take football as an example, and I mean the glorious American variety of football. All football fans know that a poor "official" can ruin a game. Last year, this happened two consecutive weekends in the SEC. Both games, I happened to be watching and both times the winning team got a last minute advantage due to a bad call that ultimately led to comebacks in the last seconds of the game. Afterwards, it was revealed that the same officiating team had been at both games and the team got suspended pending an investigation.
So, the problem is simple. We, as fans, do not want to see a game determined by the officials intentionally or otherwise. We want the officials there to make sure rules are followed, and that the game remains as safe as possible for all those involved.
In this case, a somewhat overzealous official was causing most of the problem by not giving players the benefit of the doubt when he thought something might have happened that upon further review did not happen.
The point of the game (other than entertaining the public) is to determine which team is better. This will presumably be determined by winning the game. That superiority might come due to superior strategy, superior athleticism, a more creative quarterback, a stronger defense, a better passing game etc. We watch the game to see how these different elements interplay and ultimately to see which team can strategically take advantage of a strength of their own or a weakness of their opposition to come out on top. A bad official can instantly undermine this process which is why it is important for officials to be knowledgeable of the rules, competent in making calls, and committed to protecting that ultimate purpose we call the Spirit of the Game.
Thus, with a simple analysis, I have the beginnings of a set of ethics for football officials. We need merely look at what actions would undermine the purpose/spirit of the game and what actions would help to protect it.
This concept becomes particularly important in my own ethos when discussing Virtue.
Virtues, in my opinion, are qualities we seek to have because they lead to the attainment of our values. However, they cannot be practiced as floating abstractions. Every virtue must have a purpose and a context in which it would make sense to have that quality. For example generosity is not a quality I would want to have if everything I "generously gave" would be used against me or toward my destruction in some way. I wouldn't be generously sharing information with someone whom I knew wanted to destroy me even if I saw generosity as a virtue. So, we must ask not only what is the purpose of a specific virtue, but also if that virtue can even meaningfully be practiced in a given context.
This particular subject fascinates me due to one specific virtue: faith.
As an atheist living in an area where there are a great many christians, I encounter this term often. So, it shocks me how few people seem to truly understand it. First of all, I would like to say that there are some contexts that I think "faith" can be a meaningful concept and perhaps even a virtue for atheists. However, I would first like to analyze the christian usage.
Faith is a virtue perceived to be an absolute necessity for belief and obedience to God. I define it as a very deep variety of trust. To have faith in God is to trust that even if you do not personally understand why something is happening there is some ultimate reason which will result in things turning out for the best. It is to trust even without evidence that there is a loving God and that he personally cares about you.
What amazes me is how few "believers" who profess deep faith truly understand what it means or more importantly what could ultimately undermine it. Since faith has so much in common with trust I would like to use trust as an example here.
Once, I had a friend tell me that if he were able to put a computer chip in his teenage daughter's head it would increase his trust in her, because he would never have to worry about where she was at. He would know that she would know that at any given moment he could determine her location and thus she would be unlikely to ever lie about it or not be where she was supposed to be.
What's the problem with that? The problem is that in that situation you have not "improved trust" but simply removed the need to trust. If trust were a muscle, you would be choosing to let it atrophy. The parent that trusts their kid is the one that rarely checks up on them. They trust that their kid is either where they said they would be or that they have a very good reason to be somewhere else. Maybe they are wrong and most teenagers will likely violate their parents trust at some time or another. There are likely many teenagers who should not be trusted that strongly, but it still follows that trust tends to involve belief without knowledge but in a good way.
I don't have to check up on her, because I know she is a good kid. I know she will be where she is supposed to be. If you constantly checked up on a kid that you claimed to trust, they would immediately begin to think you did not trust them, and indeed displaying a lack of trust tends to undermine trust.
So back to faith. If you truly have "faith" in the existence of God, it follows that you would not spend hours and hours looking for proof that God exists. If you have faith that your version and interpretation of "creation" is correct, it follows that you would not spend time trying to prove your version correct or other versions incorrect. If faith is, as I interpret it, a form of deep trust, then you cannot have faith while simultaneously searching for validation of your faith.
Definitive and convincing proof of whatever you happen to have faith in would take away the need to have faith. It would not as most people believe, strengthen it. Searching for evidence of God's existence is the moral equivalent of constantly checking up on the teenage daughter. You are not improving your faith by doing it, but rather, you are displaying your lack of faith. Now maybe your God doesn't warrant faith, just as some teenagers do not yet warrant trust.
Faith is not necessarily always a virtue anymore than trust would always make sense in every context.
I am going to stop here, because this got a little long but part II will be a discussion of other virtues and what actions I believe could ultimately undermine them.
0 comments:
Post a Comment