what? you think FO cannot have V-day blues ah?
=P
here's wishing all married and unmarried couples a very happy valentine's day. may this day be a time of great joy and happiness as you spend time with and shower appreciation on the ones you love. above all else, may you celebrate what many believe to be the most beautiful thing in the world: love.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
racism, offense and discrimination (blue)
I read with much interest the comments thread of the article written Speranza Nouva in Singapore Angle on the "No Pork" Podcast. Multiple issues were raised, and I believe Dansong did a good job in presenting a structure to the different issues (in addition to voicing his own opinions).
The scope of this article is to explore the question "Was the podcast ethical?" I am deliberately not going to talk about issues related to freedom of speech, nor issues related to criminal law.
The first test of the question "Is X morally permissible" is usually a test of intuition. Upon viewing the podcast, did you feel that this was something which was unethical? Unfortunately, the intuition test fails us because there is very little consensus. Reactions to the podcast range from "highly offensive" to "no big deal". [Prima facie, I will take "offensive" to imply not morally permissible.]The fact that we do not have a consensual intuition is something worth investigating in itself, and I will say more about that later.
What could be a second test of "Is X morally permissible"? Ben (commenting on SN's article) suggested that we could start first with the question "Who should decide if this is offensive?", and offers two possible answers. Either the minority community, or the state (represented as the "reasonable man"). Let's try both. What does the minority community feel about the podcast? Anybody knows? I can supply my intuition, but short of real statistics, I can't say for sure. Has someone done a survey of the Muslim/Indian community? As for the blogosphere, I only found one response from a Muslim (found at Kitana's blog):
"i’m muslim and i’m not at all offended. People really need to have a sense of humour and stop acting like some self-righteous guardians of this and that."
I'm not suggesting this view is representative of the minority community. But if it is really not representative, then it begs the question, what if there is no consensus among the minority community? What if they cannot agree among themselves if the podcast is offensive or not? Do we take a majority vote then? Or perhaps we take the decision of an appointed leader of the minority community?
Ben himself thinks that the "reasonable man" is a better candidate for this test (probably because he thinks minority communities should not be given special status when it comes to deciding what is or is not ethical). But Ben also admits that "we are not sure in this case what the minority reasonable person truly thinks of feel". If that is so, how about the non-minority reasonable person? But how accurate is the non-minority person in deciding the amount of offense the minority community feels? Are we not back at the problem of the first test of intuition?
So now we resort to the third test. We "reason" about it. In philosophical ethics, there are two general approaches to such an ethical question. The first approach has to do with evaluating consequences. What are the negative consequences (potential harm done) of the podcast? SN has suggested 2 possible detrimental consequences: the provocation of "communal emotions", and copycat behavior. It appears to me that the main consequence we ought to be concerned with is still the amount of offense the minority community feels. If there is minimal offense, for example, communal emotions and copycat behavior would not be issues. But how to measure or calculate the amount of offense inflicted by the podcast? We're back to the same problem again.
The second approach has got to do with irreducible moral principles, such as rights. This is usually the approach taken when we label something as "racist" and claim that it is wrong. When we say that racism is wrong, we mean the act of racism is wrong, regardless if anybody got offended. So perhaps we might, as a principle, accept that whatever is racist must definitely be wrong and not morally permissible. Hold on a sec. What do we mean by "racist"?
Consider a thought experiment. Imagine there is a minority community of an ethic race/religion called "Ralgon". Ralgonians don't eat chicken because they worship a chicken god, and hence chicken meat is sacred and not to be eaten. However, they live in peace and harmony with the rest of the people in the nation who do eat chicken. One day, someone made a podcast of a bunch of teenagers ordering chicken from a Ralgonian popiah stall, and soon this podcast spread to the whole Ralgonian population. Consider the below scenarios:
1) 0% of the Ralgonians found it offensive. Many found it funny in fact. Would you call the podcast racist?
2) 10% of the Ralgonians found it offensive, but 90% thought it was okay, and think that the other 10% are getting too worked up over something which isn't a big deal. Would you call the podcast racist?
3) Same as above, except 20-80%. Racist or no?
4) 30-70%.
etc etc.
My guess is that, for different individuals, we have a different intuition of which threshold when breached, becomes "racism". Some of us may think only at the 50% mark, others might think around the 30% mark, maybe some others the 5% mark. But I believe few would have the intuition that if there is 0% offense, it is still considered an act of racism. But if the podcast is exactly the same for each scenario, and if the determinant factor of racism (and hence moral permissibility) is the act and not the consequence, then why does our intuition change with each different scenario?
Allow me to explain what I do NOT mean. I do NOT mean that it is okay (morally permissible) to not select someone at a job interview solely because of his skin colour, nor is it okay to insult and beat up someone on the street because of his skin color, even if for both these persons, they take no offense. The idea I'm talking about is harm done (perhaps, to echo Ben). If someone gets denied employment, or if they get physically injured, there is significant harm done even if there was no offense. But if someone makes a joke (and no real Ralgonians were hurt, injured or being made angry by the production of this podcast), and nobody takes offense, there where is the harm done? And if there is no harm done, then how is this not morally permissible? You may want to claim that it is not very virtuous to make fun of other people, even if they are not offended. Point taken. But virtues and morals are different.
I have nothing but respect for SN and Dansong, and think they wrote excellent articles. However, my personal opinion is that we sometimes cry "racist" too often, without thinking clearly what it really means. Some of us have very entrenched views that "racism" is evil and bad, and this is probably due to the influence of historical examples of how the "whites" treated the "blacks" in America, Europe and Africa, and how the oppressed fought for their civil rights. Again, I am NOT saying the "whites" were justified in treating the "blacks" that way. They were not. I am also NOT saying civil rights is a bad thing. It is a good thing. What I am saying is, out of that tradition, we have perhaps been too conditioned to label any identification of racial differences as "racist". and attach a stigma to that, when in reality, perhaps such a stigma or label is not quite as justified.
Racism is commonly defined as believing one's own race is superior to another race. I believe that should definitely not be encouraged. But is identifying differences and making fun of these differences (in the absence of offense) also by principle, racist? It appears to me not so. Afro-American comedians (such as Chris Rock) make fun about Afro-Americans (and white Americans as well) in the name of humour, yet nobody accuses them of being racist (however, if a white comedian makes fun of Afro-Americans, he might very well be labeled a racist. That however, is a separate, but interesting, issue to consider). When Chris Rock makes fun of a white guy, do you think anybody is going to claim that Chris Rock believes blacks are superior to whites?
Lets get back to the podcast. So is it ethical or not? To be truthful, I have no idea. I have not seen the podcast myself (for reasons why, check out my purple post). But it appears to me the key issue is about harm done, and the main harm we are concerned with is offense. My own suspicion is that some members of the minority community will be offended and some will not. But how much of each? None of us really knows. I believe this is something worth researching (and coming up with statistics). [PAPanons: yes I'm talking to you guys!] If we are serious about fostering racial/religious harmony, it may be a good idea to have a more in depth study on exactly how sensitive certain racial/religious groups are to certain stimuli, and hence have a better idea on how to manage racial/religious tensions.
Why don' we just play it safe? Since we don't know how many people find it offensive, why don't we just label this as "racist" and put a stop to such incidents? Even if it is an over-reaction, what's there to lose? Some individuals have raised the concern that if we restrict too much, we stifle creativity or we kill our sense of humour. That is probably true, but these arguments might seem frivolous compared to the potential harm racial tensions can cause. However, I still believe playing it safe is really not a solution in the long run.
One of the consequences of the civil liberties movements is the rise of political correctness. If you are a white guy, you don't ever call an Afro-American, a "nigger". Similarly, my impression is that we have a certain amount of political correctness being cultivated among ourselves in Singapore, when it comes to issues of race and religion (with perhaps the blogosphere an exception). But the problem with political correctness is, we are too concerned about not saying the wrong things, or only saying the right things. The real issue, as SN has pointed out, is in the hearts and minds of the individuals, not about what they say or do on the outside. I think the "play it safe" approach in restricting everything which could be potentially harmful, will in the long run, instead of better mutual understanding and harmony, it will result in greater political correctness. There will still be the same kind of tensions seething underneath the surface and outward appearances (since we never make any real effort to engage our differences), or worse, it actually breeds more resentment or tension.
I believe the "racist" label is causing more harm than good in Singapore society. We must admit that there are still racial tensions, and perhaps they cannot be completely eliminated. But I feel that how we ought to approach the issue is not to have heavy-handed restrictions on what can or cannot be done (or at least not to focus on them), but to have more dialogue, more studies and research, and the seeking of mutual understanding of those who are different from you.
purple
The scope of this article is to explore the question "Was the podcast ethical?" I am deliberately not going to talk about issues related to freedom of speech, nor issues related to criminal law.
The first test of the question "Is X morally permissible" is usually a test of intuition. Upon viewing the podcast, did you feel that this was something which was unethical? Unfortunately, the intuition test fails us because there is very little consensus. Reactions to the podcast range from "highly offensive" to "no big deal". [Prima facie, I will take "offensive" to imply not morally permissible.]The fact that we do not have a consensual intuition is something worth investigating in itself, and I will say more about that later.
What could be a second test of "Is X morally permissible"? Ben (commenting on SN's article) suggested that we could start first with the question "Who should decide if this is offensive?", and offers two possible answers. Either the minority community, or the state (represented as the "reasonable man"). Let's try both. What does the minority community feel about the podcast? Anybody knows? I can supply my intuition, but short of real statistics, I can't say for sure. Has someone done a survey of the Muslim/Indian community? As for the blogosphere, I only found one response from a Muslim (found at Kitana's blog):
"i’m muslim and i’m not at all offended. People really need to have a sense of humour and stop acting like some self-righteous guardians of this and that."
I'm not suggesting this view is representative of the minority community. But if it is really not representative, then it begs the question, what if there is no consensus among the minority community? What if they cannot agree among themselves if the podcast is offensive or not? Do we take a majority vote then? Or perhaps we take the decision of an appointed leader of the minority community?
Ben himself thinks that the "reasonable man" is a better candidate for this test (probably because he thinks minority communities should not be given special status when it comes to deciding what is or is not ethical). But Ben also admits that "we are not sure in this case what the minority reasonable person truly thinks of feel". If that is so, how about the non-minority reasonable person? But how accurate is the non-minority person in deciding the amount of offense the minority community feels? Are we not back at the problem of the first test of intuition?
So now we resort to the third test. We "reason" about it. In philosophical ethics, there are two general approaches to such an ethical question. The first approach has to do with evaluating consequences. What are the negative consequences (potential harm done) of the podcast? SN has suggested 2 possible detrimental consequences: the provocation of "communal emotions", and copycat behavior. It appears to me that the main consequence we ought to be concerned with is still the amount of offense the minority community feels. If there is minimal offense, for example, communal emotions and copycat behavior would not be issues. But how to measure or calculate the amount of offense inflicted by the podcast? We're back to the same problem again.
The second approach has got to do with irreducible moral principles, such as rights. This is usually the approach taken when we label something as "racist" and claim that it is wrong. When we say that racism is wrong, we mean the act of racism is wrong, regardless if anybody got offended. So perhaps we might, as a principle, accept that whatever is racist must definitely be wrong and not morally permissible. Hold on a sec. What do we mean by "racist"?
Consider a thought experiment. Imagine there is a minority community of an ethic race/religion called "Ralgon". Ralgonians don't eat chicken because they worship a chicken god, and hence chicken meat is sacred and not to be eaten. However, they live in peace and harmony with the rest of the people in the nation who do eat chicken. One day, someone made a podcast of a bunch of teenagers ordering chicken from a Ralgonian popiah stall, and soon this podcast spread to the whole Ralgonian population. Consider the below scenarios:
1) 0% of the Ralgonians found it offensive. Many found it funny in fact. Would you call the podcast racist?
2) 10% of the Ralgonians found it offensive, but 90% thought it was okay, and think that the other 10% are getting too worked up over something which isn't a big deal. Would you call the podcast racist?
3) Same as above, except 20-80%. Racist or no?
4) 30-70%.
etc etc.
My guess is that, for different individuals, we have a different intuition of which threshold when breached, becomes "racism". Some of us may think only at the 50% mark, others might think around the 30% mark, maybe some others the 5% mark. But I believe few would have the intuition that if there is 0% offense, it is still considered an act of racism. But if the podcast is exactly the same for each scenario, and if the determinant factor of racism (and hence moral permissibility) is the act and not the consequence, then why does our intuition change with each different scenario?
Allow me to explain what I do NOT mean. I do NOT mean that it is okay (morally permissible) to not select someone at a job interview solely because of his skin colour, nor is it okay to insult and beat up someone on the street because of his skin color, even if for both these persons, they take no offense. The idea I'm talking about is harm done (perhaps, to echo Ben). If someone gets denied employment, or if they get physically injured, there is significant harm done even if there was no offense. But if someone makes a joke (and no real Ralgonians were hurt, injured or being made angry by the production of this podcast), and nobody takes offense, there where is the harm done? And if there is no harm done, then how is this not morally permissible? You may want to claim that it is not very virtuous to make fun of other people, even if they are not offended. Point taken. But virtues and morals are different.
I have nothing but respect for SN and Dansong, and think they wrote excellent articles. However, my personal opinion is that we sometimes cry "racist" too often, without thinking clearly what it really means. Some of us have very entrenched views that "racism" is evil and bad, and this is probably due to the influence of historical examples of how the "whites" treated the "blacks" in America, Europe and Africa, and how the oppressed fought for their civil rights. Again, I am NOT saying the "whites" were justified in treating the "blacks" that way. They were not. I am also NOT saying civil rights is a bad thing. It is a good thing. What I am saying is, out of that tradition, we have perhaps been too conditioned to label any identification of racial differences as "racist". and attach a stigma to that, when in reality, perhaps such a stigma or label is not quite as justified.
Racism is commonly defined as believing one's own race is superior to another race. I believe that should definitely not be encouraged. But is identifying differences and making fun of these differences (in the absence of offense) also by principle, racist? It appears to me not so. Afro-American comedians (such as Chris Rock) make fun about Afro-Americans (and white Americans as well) in the name of humour, yet nobody accuses them of being racist (however, if a white comedian makes fun of Afro-Americans, he might very well be labeled a racist. That however, is a separate, but interesting, issue to consider). When Chris Rock makes fun of a white guy, do you think anybody is going to claim that Chris Rock believes blacks are superior to whites?
Lets get back to the podcast. So is it ethical or not? To be truthful, I have no idea. I have not seen the podcast myself (for reasons why, check out my purple post). But it appears to me the key issue is about harm done, and the main harm we are concerned with is offense. My own suspicion is that some members of the minority community will be offended and some will not. But how much of each? None of us really knows. I believe this is something worth researching (and coming up with statistics). [PAPanons: yes I'm talking to you guys!] If we are serious about fostering racial/religious harmony, it may be a good idea to have a more in depth study on exactly how sensitive certain racial/religious groups are to certain stimuli, and hence have a better idea on how to manage racial/religious tensions.
Why don' we just play it safe? Since we don't know how many people find it offensive, why don't we just label this as "racist" and put a stop to such incidents? Even if it is an over-reaction, what's there to lose? Some individuals have raised the concern that if we restrict too much, we stifle creativity or we kill our sense of humour. That is probably true, but these arguments might seem frivolous compared to the potential harm racial tensions can cause. However, I still believe playing it safe is really not a solution in the long run.
One of the consequences of the civil liberties movements is the rise of political correctness. If you are a white guy, you don't ever call an Afro-American, a "nigger". Similarly, my impression is that we have a certain amount of political correctness being cultivated among ourselves in Singapore, when it comes to issues of race and religion (with perhaps the blogosphere an exception). But the problem with political correctness is, we are too concerned about not saying the wrong things, or only saying the right things. The real issue, as SN has pointed out, is in the hearts and minds of the individuals, not about what they say or do on the outside. I think the "play it safe" approach in restricting everything which could be potentially harmful, will in the long run, instead of better mutual understanding and harmony, it will result in greater political correctness. There will still be the same kind of tensions seething underneath the surface and outward appearances (since we never make any real effort to engage our differences), or worse, it actually breeds more resentment or tension.
I believe the "racist" label is causing more harm than good in Singapore society. We must admit that there are still racial tensions, and perhaps they cannot be completely eliminated. But I feel that how we ought to approach the issue is not to have heavy-handed restrictions on what can or cannot be done (or at least not to focus on them), but to have more dialogue, more studies and research, and the seeking of mutual understanding of those who are different from you.
purple
racism, offense and discrimination (purple)
i have two embarrassing confessions to make in this post.
the first is that, despite all the recent buzz regarding "no pork", i haven't seen the podcast yet. it is not because, like ben, i'm so convinced of its filth, but rather, i'm actually only on a dial-up internet connection, and i don't have enough bandwidth to download even a meager podcast. =(
the second confession will be at the end of this post.
i once heard someone say this: "many years ago, when i was in school, i was in the school hockey team. we were all good friends. like any other kids our age, when you screw up on the hockey pitch, we would give each other hell. if the guy who screwed up was a malay guy, some of the teammates might say 'eh melayu, you cannot play properly isit?', or if an indian, 'eh thambi, the ball so big you cannot see ah', or if a chinese, 'eh chinaman, what happen to you?' we were all friends, so nobody took offense. but nowadays if you say such things, you might get arrested."
when i was in secondary school, we had this national education talk by this speaker, who was an indian lady. she said her son came home from kindergarten one day, and draw a picture of himself and two friends. he coloured himself dark brown, another friend light brown, and the last friend beige. then he told her "this is me, i am indian. this is a malay, and this is a chinese." she got so angry that she went to look for the kindergarten teacher and asked her "why are you teaching my son how to tell apart the races? we are all singaporeans, you should not teach children at such a young age to segregate each other into different races!" i thought she was nuts.
these are two different approaches to racial harmony. which do you prefer?
during the feminist movement, many feminists preached that there were no differences between the sexes. anything men could do, women could do as well. nowadays, we think this is ridiculous. in many ways, men are different from women. men are in general, physically stronger, women are better in forming inter-personal relationships and close bonds, for example. similarly, shortly after the civil liberties movement in america, many denied any difference between black and whites. blacks and whites are equal in every way. in fact, they can't even use the word "black" or "white". everyone is an american. nowadays, blacks are proud to be blacks (and different from the whites). they have a culture, and the derivatives of that culture, such as hip-hop, is taking the rest of the world by storm.
a common reaction when it comes to discrimination, be it racial, religious, gender, or sexual orientation, is to deny that there is any difference between different groups. sometimes, we fool ourselves to think that is true, but usually, deep inside our hearts, we know that we are different, but for the sake of being politically correct, we claim otherwise. in the comments thread of Sperenza Nouva's article on the "no pork" podcast, Agagooga made the claim that deep down inside, we are all racist. i've taken issue with the term "racist" in my blue post, but i find it plausible that for most of us, we have certain elements of ethnocenrism or xenophobia, be it inherent or nurtured.
the question should then be, how ought we view groups of people who are different from us? for me personally, i find that denying differences is just silly. telling a kindergarten kid that there is no difference between a malay, an indian or a chinese is just inviting cognitive dissonance. of course there is a difference. it is in the colour of their skin, but not just that, it is in the clothes they wear, the language they speak, the religions they believe in, the festivals they celebrate, the culture and traditions they live in.
it is not denying differences, but respecting them.
just because other groups are different, doesn't make them superior or inferior. they are just different. this is one thing which i believe we ought to repeatedly teach our children. but lets say i believe that to be true, i really do. but still, i feel uncomfortable around someone from another race. i prefer to be with someone of my own race. does that make me a bad person? of course not. it is a good idea to interact and have friendships with individuals who are from different races, but if you're not comfortable doing so, that is not something which you are at fault for, although it may be something you might want to change, or rather, you should try to change.
i do not know about you, but i would rather my children be able to play soccer with children from other races, be able to be good friends with them and be so comfortable with each other that they each can poke fun at each other's race without feelings of offense, than for them to be told that there is no difference between chinese, malay and indian in class, and for them to always be fearful of not saying sensitive things or they will be caned by the teacher.
but how does one achieve the former scenario, given that we probably have dispositions to favor our own race. not to mention the existence of racial stereotypes? i've been thinking about this, and i realized the issue (and the solution) is the same for all kinds of discrimination, not just for race, but also for gender, religion and sexual orientation. this brings me to my second embarrassing confession.
when i first started blogging last october, i explored the blogosphere and i stumbled upon yawningbread for the first time. before i read any of the articles, i read the profile of Alex Au first, and upon finding out that he was a homosexual and a gay activist, i dismissed the blog and didn't bother to read his articles anymore. a few days later, i found that many other bloggers linked to yawningbread, and upon reading his articles then i realized that i almost chose to totally dismiss what is one of the best blogs in the singaporean plogosphere.
a few days ago a friend asked me "are you homophobic?" i found that i cannot give a very straightforward "no" as an answer, and this set me thinking. do i intellectually believe that homosexuals ought to be treated differently from heterosexuals? absolutely not. but do i feel somewhat uncomfortable around people who have identified themselves to be homosexual? i must admit, i do. i have, however, been much more comfortable with them after i discovered one of my good friends was actually a lesbian (and i didn't know before hand), and i realized she was still equally human, not unlike my other friends at all.
i believe many people think the solution to discrimination is the clamping down of the expressions of such prejudice. that is why we argue for laws against hate speech, and we label and stigmatize actions which are discriminatory. but the cause of such discrimination in the first place, is a lack of sufficient understanding between different groups, and that lack of understanding will still be present (since that is not addressed) when laws and structures are in place to curb expressions of discrimination. only now it is hidden over the cover of political correctness. worse still, because there is no outlet for the resentment and tensions caused by such lack of understanding, having to force such feelings under such a facade may in turn breed more tension and resentment. that is why i think singaporeans of today are actually more racist than singaporeans of 20 years ago.
the only way to be free (or as close as possible to that) of such discrimination is not to focus on the restrictions of what we can or cannot do (i'm not suggesting we do away with laws and restrictions totally, they have their purposes), but to focus on how we can greater achieve mutual understanding and respect between different groups. firstly, can you convince yourself intellectually that you are not superior to anybody else just because they are different from you? (this may be more difficult than it sounds) if you can achieve that, then secondly, take steps to try and get to know those different from you better, and probably you will realize, these people are not much different from you, and the irrational fear and distrust of those who appear different from you will slowly fade away.
i believe that the war against discrimination should not be fought by laws and legislation, but by convincing one heart, one mind at a time. i hope one day, i will be able to meet Alex Au, shake his hand without feeling that irrational fear, sit down and have a good chat with him over coffee. and then i will tell him "i'm sorry that the first time i read your blog, i decided to skip it because you were a homosexual. but i would like to better understand our differences, and i hope that we can be friends"
Blue
the first is that, despite all the recent buzz regarding "no pork", i haven't seen the podcast yet. it is not because, like ben, i'm so convinced of its filth, but rather, i'm actually only on a dial-up internet connection, and i don't have enough bandwidth to download even a meager podcast. =(
the second confession will be at the end of this post.
i once heard someone say this: "many years ago, when i was in school, i was in the school hockey team. we were all good friends. like any other kids our age, when you screw up on the hockey pitch, we would give each other hell. if the guy who screwed up was a malay guy, some of the teammates might say 'eh melayu, you cannot play properly isit?', or if an indian, 'eh thambi, the ball so big you cannot see ah', or if a chinese, 'eh chinaman, what happen to you?' we were all friends, so nobody took offense. but nowadays if you say such things, you might get arrested."
when i was in secondary school, we had this national education talk by this speaker, who was an indian lady. she said her son came home from kindergarten one day, and draw a picture of himself and two friends. he coloured himself dark brown, another friend light brown, and the last friend beige. then he told her "this is me, i am indian. this is a malay, and this is a chinese." she got so angry that she went to look for the kindergarten teacher and asked her "why are you teaching my son how to tell apart the races? we are all singaporeans, you should not teach children at such a young age to segregate each other into different races!" i thought she was nuts.
these are two different approaches to racial harmony. which do you prefer?
during the feminist movement, many feminists preached that there were no differences between the sexes. anything men could do, women could do as well. nowadays, we think this is ridiculous. in many ways, men are different from women. men are in general, physically stronger, women are better in forming inter-personal relationships and close bonds, for example. similarly, shortly after the civil liberties movement in america, many denied any difference between black and whites. blacks and whites are equal in every way. in fact, they can't even use the word "black" or "white". everyone is an american. nowadays, blacks are proud to be blacks (and different from the whites). they have a culture, and the derivatives of that culture, such as hip-hop, is taking the rest of the world by storm.
a common reaction when it comes to discrimination, be it racial, religious, gender, or sexual orientation, is to deny that there is any difference between different groups. sometimes, we fool ourselves to think that is true, but usually, deep inside our hearts, we know that we are different, but for the sake of being politically correct, we claim otherwise. in the comments thread of Sperenza Nouva's article on the "no pork" podcast, Agagooga made the claim that deep down inside, we are all racist. i've taken issue with the term "racist" in my blue post, but i find it plausible that for most of us, we have certain elements of ethnocenrism or xenophobia, be it inherent or nurtured.
the question should then be, how ought we view groups of people who are different from us? for me personally, i find that denying differences is just silly. telling a kindergarten kid that there is no difference between a malay, an indian or a chinese is just inviting cognitive dissonance. of course there is a difference. it is in the colour of their skin, but not just that, it is in the clothes they wear, the language they speak, the religions they believe in, the festivals they celebrate, the culture and traditions they live in.
it is not denying differences, but respecting them.
just because other groups are different, doesn't make them superior or inferior. they are just different. this is one thing which i believe we ought to repeatedly teach our children. but lets say i believe that to be true, i really do. but still, i feel uncomfortable around someone from another race. i prefer to be with someone of my own race. does that make me a bad person? of course not. it is a good idea to interact and have friendships with individuals who are from different races, but if you're not comfortable doing so, that is not something which you are at fault for, although it may be something you might want to change, or rather, you should try to change.
i do not know about you, but i would rather my children be able to play soccer with children from other races, be able to be good friends with them and be so comfortable with each other that they each can poke fun at each other's race without feelings of offense, than for them to be told that there is no difference between chinese, malay and indian in class, and for them to always be fearful of not saying sensitive things or they will be caned by the teacher.
but how does one achieve the former scenario, given that we probably have dispositions to favor our own race. not to mention the existence of racial stereotypes? i've been thinking about this, and i realized the issue (and the solution) is the same for all kinds of discrimination, not just for race, but also for gender, religion and sexual orientation. this brings me to my second embarrassing confession.
when i first started blogging last october, i explored the blogosphere and i stumbled upon yawningbread for the first time. before i read any of the articles, i read the profile of Alex Au first, and upon finding out that he was a homosexual and a gay activist, i dismissed the blog and didn't bother to read his articles anymore. a few days later, i found that many other bloggers linked to yawningbread, and upon reading his articles then i realized that i almost chose to totally dismiss what is one of the best blogs in the singaporean plogosphere.
a few days ago a friend asked me "are you homophobic?" i found that i cannot give a very straightforward "no" as an answer, and this set me thinking. do i intellectually believe that homosexuals ought to be treated differently from heterosexuals? absolutely not. but do i feel somewhat uncomfortable around people who have identified themselves to be homosexual? i must admit, i do. i have, however, been much more comfortable with them after i discovered one of my good friends was actually a lesbian (and i didn't know before hand), and i realized she was still equally human, not unlike my other friends at all.
i believe many people think the solution to discrimination is the clamping down of the expressions of such prejudice. that is why we argue for laws against hate speech, and we label and stigmatize actions which are discriminatory. but the cause of such discrimination in the first place, is a lack of sufficient understanding between different groups, and that lack of understanding will still be present (since that is not addressed) when laws and structures are in place to curb expressions of discrimination. only now it is hidden over the cover of political correctness. worse still, because there is no outlet for the resentment and tensions caused by such lack of understanding, having to force such feelings under such a facade may in turn breed more tension and resentment. that is why i think singaporeans of today are actually more racist than singaporeans of 20 years ago.
the only way to be free (or as close as possible to that) of such discrimination is not to focus on the restrictions of what we can or cannot do (i'm not suggesting we do away with laws and restrictions totally, they have their purposes), but to focus on how we can greater achieve mutual understanding and respect between different groups. firstly, can you convince yourself intellectually that you are not superior to anybody else just because they are different from you? (this may be more difficult than it sounds) if you can achieve that, then secondly, take steps to try and get to know those different from you better, and probably you will realize, these people are not much different from you, and the irrational fear and distrust of those who appear different from you will slowly fade away.
i believe that the war against discrimination should not be fought by laws and legislation, but by convincing one heart, one mind at a time. i hope one day, i will be able to meet Alex Au, shake his hand without feeling that irrational fear, sit down and have a good chat with him over coffee. and then i will tell him "i'm sorry that the first time i read your blog, i decided to skip it because you were a homosexual. but i would like to better understand our differences, and i hope that we can be friends"
Blue
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
emotions, rationality and morality
I've just spend several hours catching up on the blogospherical activity of the past few days. Despite all the interesting stuff going on about the "no pork" podcast (which I plan to blog about later) and the PAP counter-insurgency, it was actually this article Yawning Bread which I found most thought provoking.
With reference to the hanging of Tochi (still remember him?), Alex Au describes a boundary-drawing factor on how individuals in the blogosphere talk about issues such as capital punishment or homosexuality. He calls these factors "moral horror" or "moral disapproval", and states that these factors are essentially "irrational", meaning that "they cannot be reduced to rational arguments". He also makes very interesting revelations about the global opinions of teenagers with respect to capital punishment, and in particular, about the teenagers of London, and how they seem to be against the death penalty by virtue of the fact that they grew up in a state of affairs where the death penalty was abolished and have come to accept that state of affairs as normal, and not purely by rational considerations.
After thinking about it, I realized this was actually what I have already been talking about, except using different terminology. This is about differing worldviews. I think Yawning Bread was right that our individual worldviews set the boundaries of what kind of arguments we are able to accept and what kind of arguments we do not. I think this also helps to explain why the teenagers of London are more anti-death penalty. Our worldviews are shaped by our experiences and our environment, and the worldviews of young Britons growing up in an environment where the dealth penalty has already been abolished, is perhaps more likely to be anti-dealth penalty than the older Britons, who did not grow up in such an environment.
With regards to the article, there are still two questions which I want to address.
1) How "irrational" are worldviews (or "moral horror")? What does this mean for reasoned discourse?
2) How can we encourage a worldview shift ("perspectival shift") in detractors? Should we do this even if we can?
There are (at least) two factors which determine our worldviews: experiences and deliberations. Experiences such as if you have physically observed a murder trial sentencing, or a seen a video of an execution, could very possibly cause you to react (emotionally?) in a way that prods you towards an anti-death penalty stand. Certainly, it does not make much sense to label such experiences as "rational", as experiences are not really arguments or propositions. And if we want to claim such reactions to be emotional reactions, some individuals might be willing to label such reactions to be "irrational" and deem them as invalid data points in a rational argument. Perhaps such individuals might even cry "appeal to emotion!", and discredit such views as fallacious.
My personal opinion is that, the role of emotions and intuitions in rational discourse (allow me to call this"affective reasoning") should not be totally disregarded. In fact I think, if we refuse to allow any affective reasoning at all in our rational discussions, then the only subject matter we can talk about is mathematics. One cannot reason in a vacuum. There has to be starting points in any rational view we take, and these starting points have to be assumptions. How do we arrive at these assumptions? From our experiences yes, but also from affective means. This is also why there is a great diversity of worldviews (collection of such assumptions). Not only do individuals differ greatly in individual experiences but the same experiences affect individuals differently.
[Some individuals might want to argue that fundamental assumptions derived from experiences are permissible but those through affective means are not, in a rational discussion. (Quick rebuttal: why do they feel so? Is it not by their intuition? Is that not affective?) Indeed, whether "intuitions" can be considered as data in philosophical reasoning, is something which is something which philosophers argue about and disagree over. Nevertheless, most of us are not philosophers, and I have yet to come across anybody in the blogosphere who argues that intuitions aren't permissible in a rational discussion.]
Does this diversity in worldviews mean we cannot have rational discourse? I don't think so, but I think it means that we cannot have agreement on some issues. This, of course, is not new to us. The question is rather, how should we engage with each other when we come from differing worldviews? I had previously urged bloggers to agree to disagree and to try and understand the worldviews of their detractors, and this I think is the first step that most of us do not do enough. Nevertheless, is this all that we can do? Could we perhaps, try to prod others and try to shift their worldviews to be more aligned with ours? If we do so, does this not sound like brainwashing?
Consider this thought experiment. There was a time in the past, in some cultures, where the majority of the people thought it was okay to keep slaves. "That it is morally permissible to own another human being as a slave" was an assumption in most worldviews of the people of that time. Imagine you are a time traveler and returned back to that era, and engaged in rational discourse with the people there. After trying hard to understand where they are coming from, but still disagreeing, are you going to say, "let's agree to disagree", and be happy with their keeping of slaves? Or will you perhaps, try to change their worldview, by bringing some of them back into the future, and showing them the history books and the great speeches? I believe most of us will choose the latter. But isn't that brainwashing? No we probably don't feel so. If we truly attempted to understand the other point of view but still feel that it is "less enlightened" than our own, we feel that it is quite morally permissible to attempt to prod them to change their worldview, by introducing new experiences.
How about if we apply these principles to an issue like homophobia, or abolishment of death penalty? Is it morally permissible to handcuff a homophobe to a homosexual for 24 hours, forcing him/her to engage in a conversation with a homosexual and helping him to experience that homosexuals are just humans and not monsters? How about we force proponents of the death penalty to view videos of executions, or a movie like Dead Man Walking? It appears that these two examples, although well intentioned, probably cross the line of what is morally permissible, or at the very least, what is civil.
So how can someone attempt to change his detractor's worldview? Rational arguments is always a possibility. Some worldviews are probably more coherent than others, and rational deliberation is also (in addition to external experiences) a determining factor no how one reaches one's own worldview. But as we are quite well aware of, rational arguments usually isn't enough to sway another. Then what? Rhetoric and polemics (manipulation of emotion)? Perhaps. But another way we can "enlighten" each other is by sharing your own experiences. Giving personal anecdotes and narratives (although some will be more skillful than others in doing this), instead of bashing each other with "reason", may perhaps may be your best chance of persuading your opponent.
A final word: before you try to convince your detractors, have you really tried to understand where your detractors are coming from? Or do you just care to win the debate, and you want to try whatever tactics necessary to win? If so, are you so sure it is not you who needs to be enlightened?
With reference to the hanging of Tochi (still remember him?), Alex Au describes a boundary-drawing factor on how individuals in the blogosphere talk about issues such as capital punishment or homosexuality. He calls these factors "moral horror" or "moral disapproval", and states that these factors are essentially "irrational", meaning that "they cannot be reduced to rational arguments". He also makes very interesting revelations about the global opinions of teenagers with respect to capital punishment, and in particular, about the teenagers of London, and how they seem to be against the death penalty by virtue of the fact that they grew up in a state of affairs where the death penalty was abolished and have come to accept that state of affairs as normal, and not purely by rational considerations.
After thinking about it, I realized this was actually what I have already been talking about, except using different terminology. This is about differing worldviews. I think Yawning Bread was right that our individual worldviews set the boundaries of what kind of arguments we are able to accept and what kind of arguments we do not. I think this also helps to explain why the teenagers of London are more anti-death penalty. Our worldviews are shaped by our experiences and our environment, and the worldviews of young Britons growing up in an environment where the dealth penalty has already been abolished, is perhaps more likely to be anti-dealth penalty than the older Britons, who did not grow up in such an environment.
With regards to the article, there are still two questions which I want to address.
1) How "irrational" are worldviews (or "moral horror")? What does this mean for reasoned discourse?
2) How can we encourage a worldview shift ("perspectival shift") in detractors? Should we do this even if we can?
There are (at least) two factors which determine our worldviews: experiences and deliberations. Experiences such as if you have physically observed a murder trial sentencing, or a seen a video of an execution, could very possibly cause you to react (emotionally?) in a way that prods you towards an anti-death penalty stand. Certainly, it does not make much sense to label such experiences as "rational", as experiences are not really arguments or propositions. And if we want to claim such reactions to be emotional reactions, some individuals might be willing to label such reactions to be "irrational" and deem them as invalid data points in a rational argument. Perhaps such individuals might even cry "appeal to emotion!", and discredit such views as fallacious.
My personal opinion is that, the role of emotions and intuitions in rational discourse (allow me to call this"affective reasoning") should not be totally disregarded. In fact I think, if we refuse to allow any affective reasoning at all in our rational discussions, then the only subject matter we can talk about is mathematics. One cannot reason in a vacuum. There has to be starting points in any rational view we take, and these starting points have to be assumptions. How do we arrive at these assumptions? From our experiences yes, but also from affective means. This is also why there is a great diversity of worldviews (collection of such assumptions). Not only do individuals differ greatly in individual experiences but the same experiences affect individuals differently.
[Some individuals might want to argue that fundamental assumptions derived from experiences are permissible but those through affective means are not, in a rational discussion. (Quick rebuttal: why do they feel so? Is it not by their intuition? Is that not affective?) Indeed, whether "intuitions" can be considered as data in philosophical reasoning, is something which is something which philosophers argue about and disagree over. Nevertheless, most of us are not philosophers, and I have yet to come across anybody in the blogosphere who argues that intuitions aren't permissible in a rational discussion.]
Does this diversity in worldviews mean we cannot have rational discourse? I don't think so, but I think it means that we cannot have agreement on some issues. This, of course, is not new to us. The question is rather, how should we engage with each other when we come from differing worldviews? I had previously urged bloggers to agree to disagree and to try and understand the worldviews of their detractors, and this I think is the first step that most of us do not do enough. Nevertheless, is this all that we can do? Could we perhaps, try to prod others and try to shift their worldviews to be more aligned with ours? If we do so, does this not sound like brainwashing?
Consider this thought experiment. There was a time in the past, in some cultures, where the majority of the people thought it was okay to keep slaves. "That it is morally permissible to own another human being as a slave" was an assumption in most worldviews of the people of that time. Imagine you are a time traveler and returned back to that era, and engaged in rational discourse with the people there. After trying hard to understand where they are coming from, but still disagreeing, are you going to say, "let's agree to disagree", and be happy with their keeping of slaves? Or will you perhaps, try to change their worldview, by bringing some of them back into the future, and showing them the history books and the great speeches? I believe most of us will choose the latter. But isn't that brainwashing? No we probably don't feel so. If we truly attempted to understand the other point of view but still feel that it is "less enlightened" than our own, we feel that it is quite morally permissible to attempt to prod them to change their worldview, by introducing new experiences.
How about if we apply these principles to an issue like homophobia, or abolishment of death penalty? Is it morally permissible to handcuff a homophobe to a homosexual for 24 hours, forcing him/her to engage in a conversation with a homosexual and helping him to experience that homosexuals are just humans and not monsters? How about we force proponents of the death penalty to view videos of executions, or a movie like Dead Man Walking? It appears that these two examples, although well intentioned, probably cross the line of what is morally permissible, or at the very least, what is civil.
So how can someone attempt to change his detractor's worldview? Rational arguments is always a possibility. Some worldviews are probably more coherent than others, and rational deliberation is also (in addition to external experiences) a determining factor no how one reaches one's own worldview. But as we are quite well aware of, rational arguments usually isn't enough to sway another. Then what? Rhetoric and polemics (manipulation of emotion)? Perhaps. But another way we can "enlighten" each other is by sharing your own experiences. Giving personal anecdotes and narratives (although some will be more skillful than others in doing this), instead of bashing each other with "reason", may perhaps may be your best chance of persuading your opponent.
A final word: before you try to convince your detractors, have you really tried to understand where your detractors are coming from? Or do you just care to win the debate, and you want to try whatever tactics necessary to win? If so, are you so sure it is not you who needs to be enlightened?
Sunday, February 04, 2007
thoughts on a good post
once in a while you come across something which you think is so good you want to share it with everybody. (never mind the fact that everybody who reads this blog probably have already read it).
this is a good post.
i'm kinda busy right now (that's why never blog mah) and i don't even have time to read the new good stuff which is appearing on IS and SA (i'm very excited that kitana submitted to SA), but this one link on IS made me pause to read it. and i'm glad i did.
but why do i like this post so much?
if it is not obvious to most folks by now, i am have some training and background in philosophy. philosophy to me is not just an academic discipline, but has generally entrenched itself in my outlook on life and my thinking process. it's something which has taken over such a large part of my intellectual self that its hard for me to actually think outside the perspective of analytic philosophy. (i'm not saying i'm very good at it lah) in fact, i think this can be seen through most of my posts.
but there is one thing which i find very disappointing of being a "philosopher". and that is, a philosopher (in the analytic tradition, which i am trained in) focuses on being objective, and filtering out distracting factors so that he can focus on the "core issues". at the end of the day, analytic philosophers deal with deductive logic, axioms, definitions, cold cut logic. that's excellent when we want to talk about social, political, ethical issues which applies to everybody.
but sometimes, i hope to be a human before a philosopher. i hope that ultimately to me, the people around me and the issues which affect me as a person are more important, and more worth my time thinking about, than issues which affect society, the human race, or the universe. i think that's what it takes to be human. being human is subjective, is messy, but there is an inherent beauty in being an individual and spending time thinking about and working on personal dreams and ambitions, friends and family, human relationships which are important. sometimes i think, when i become too much of a "philosopher", or when i read or write stuff on the blogosphere, i lose more and more of that each day.
that is until i come across something like what Trisha has written. the stuff written at SA, most of the time, is high quality intellectual stuff. the stuff written by xenoboy (most of the time) is amazing beauty through pure sophistry. even the stuff written by mollymeek, i consider to be a works of art. but none of them provides the sheer beauty of having a living breathing human and individual perspective, like what Trisha has provided here.
and the amazing thing is, for all the clearly formulated philosophical arguments we "philosophers" do, (i think lah), it pales in comparison to the power of a simple narrative of a real life, like what Trisha has shown, in terms of persuasiveness and impact. at the end of the day, we are individuals, we are human, no matter what mask we put on when we blog.
this is a good post.
i'm kinda busy right now (that's why never blog mah) and i don't even have time to read the new good stuff which is appearing on IS and SA (i'm very excited that kitana submitted to SA), but this one link on IS made me pause to read it. and i'm glad i did.
but why do i like this post so much?
if it is not obvious to most folks by now, i am have some training and background in philosophy. philosophy to me is not just an academic discipline, but has generally entrenched itself in my outlook on life and my thinking process. it's something which has taken over such a large part of my intellectual self that its hard for me to actually think outside the perspective of analytic philosophy. (i'm not saying i'm very good at it lah) in fact, i think this can be seen through most of my posts.
but there is one thing which i find very disappointing of being a "philosopher". and that is, a philosopher (in the analytic tradition, which i am trained in) focuses on being objective, and filtering out distracting factors so that he can focus on the "core issues". at the end of the day, analytic philosophers deal with deductive logic, axioms, definitions, cold cut logic. that's excellent when we want to talk about social, political, ethical issues which applies to everybody.
but sometimes, i hope to be a human before a philosopher. i hope that ultimately to me, the people around me and the issues which affect me as a person are more important, and more worth my time thinking about, than issues which affect society, the human race, or the universe. i think that's what it takes to be human. being human is subjective, is messy, but there is an inherent beauty in being an individual and spending time thinking about and working on personal dreams and ambitions, friends and family, human relationships which are important. sometimes i think, when i become too much of a "philosopher", or when i read or write stuff on the blogosphere, i lose more and more of that each day.
that is until i come across something like what Trisha has written. the stuff written at SA, most of the time, is high quality intellectual stuff. the stuff written by xenoboy (most of the time) is amazing beauty through pure sophistry. even the stuff written by mollymeek, i consider to be a works of art. but none of them provides the sheer beauty of having a living breathing human and individual perspective, like what Trisha has provided here.
and the amazing thing is, for all the clearly formulated philosophical arguments we "philosophers" do, (i think lah), it pales in comparison to the power of a simple narrative of a real life, like what Trisha has shown, in terms of persuasiveness and impact. at the end of the day, we are individuals, we are human, no matter what mask we put on when we blog.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
virtue and the singaporean
There are several sources of inspiration behind this article, not all of them might seem related at first:
Heavenly Sword laments that everybody around him appears to be self-centered.
Zyberzitizen writes that compassion and selflessness is in our human nature, but this trait is lost when we become too engrossed in being pragmatic.
Epilogos writes that charity is an important (necessary?) part of society, although the reputation of charitable organizations in Singapore has taken a hit due to NKF.
Cognitive Dissonance writes in the capacity of a social worker, and states that compassion and generosity is necessary but insufficient to be successful in doing social work.
In two previous posts on this blog, I urged bloggers to display charity and graciousness when dealing with other bloggers during disagreement, as well as attempting to explain a dichotomy between an individual (personal) point of view, and an aggregate ("objective") point of view.
Lastly, is the long standing issue about the lack of grace and courtesy among Singaporeans in general, such as not allowing passengers to alight first on the MRT.
Also, due to the recent hanging of Iwuchukwu Amara Tochi, the blogosphere is buzzing with activity with regards to capital punishment in the past few days. I will not talk about the death penalty in this article, but I will address it in my next post, which is a follow-up to this article.
***
Selflessness, generosity, compassion, grace. These are all virtues. These virtues are not just desirable, but perhaps, as Epiologos stated, essential to the sustenance of society. But are we morally obligated to display such virtues? In other words, if we fail to display these virtues, are we somehow morally wrong? One reply to that question is "of course not". If we are obligated to display selflessness, say, then how is that display truly "selfless"? Acting out of obligation, even moral obligation, seems somewhat contrary to the spirit and the meaning of such virtues. Now this is the question, if virtues are not obligatory, then we probably cannot demand anybody to display such virtues. Is it even possible to argue that one ought to display such virtues (albeit in an non-obligatory way)?
Well perhaps, if you allow me to "appeal to your good nature", to quote Mambo Happyfeet. This is the next question: do Singaporeans have any "good nature" left to appeal to? To be honest, on some days, (like Heavenly Sword) I am pessimistic. On other days, like Zyberzitizen, I feel that surely, there must be at least some shred of desire in everybody to be virtuous. Not that I believe the desire to be virtuous is innate or universal (as Zyberzitizen seems to be suggesting), but surely we've been taught since were young to strive to be virtuous, and surely there has to be at least some residual effects of that indoctrination?
Or perhaps, it is possible to argue that it is in everybody's best interest that we each try to be virtuous. When everybody becomes virtuous, everybody benefits, including yourself. There are two issues with this. Firstly, are we not appealing to self-interest when we do this? And if so, is it possible to argue for say, selflessness, on basis of self-interest? Secondly, this is a prisoner's dilemma situation. Let me illustrate this using the example of being a passenger on the MRT.
I am a passenger on the MRT, and I can either (A) not let passengers alight first or (B) allow passengers to alight first. There are other people waiting to boarding the MRT as well. In my mind, I'm thinking, they can either (A1) not let passengers alight first, or (B1) let passengers alight first. If (A1) occurs, I can either do (A) or (B). If I do (A), it is unpleasant, but I have a good chance of grabbing a seat. If I do (B), it is equally as unpleasant, and I have less chance of grabbing a seat. If (B1) occurs, I can either do (A) or (B). If I do (A), I have the best chance of grabbing a seat. If (B) occurs, it is pleasant, but I no longer stand such a good chance of grabbing a seat. In either (A1) or (B1), it is in my best self interest to choose (A) instead of (B), so if I'm being motivated by self-interest alone, I will always choose (A) instead of (B). Now, everybody waiting for the MRT will similarly be aware of this rationalization, and hence everybody will choose (A), resulting in (A)+(A1). Note that despite knowing that (B)+(B1) is better than (A)+(A1), because of the self-interested nature of the individuals involved, we will still end up choosing (A)+(A1). So appealing to self-interest is another no-go here.
Perhaps there is one other way to look at it. To do that I need to introduce another concept to contrast with virtue, and for the lack of a better term, I will use the noun 'moral'. An example of a moral is "murder is wrong". A moral is a principle which all humans ("moral agents") are morally obligated to adhere to. Failure to adhere to such principles imply that the moral agent has done something immoral, or has been immoral. How does morals contrast from virtues? Virtues are not morally binding, eg it is good to be generous, but you are not immoral (morally obligated) if you fail to be generous.
[For the more philosophically sophisticated: the term "moral" need not necessarily refer to a deontological principle. It may be a rule in rule utilitarianism, or the utilitarian principle itself.]
Why did I introduce morals? I want to bring up the dichotomy between an individual personal perspective and an aggregate, non-personal perspective. Morals make more sense in an aggregate perspective and virtues make more sense in an individual perspective. A moral is universal, and has less subjectivity (but there's still some) compared to a virtue. When we say "murder is wrong", we mean murder is wrong, universally, for all moral agents, period (with perhaps some exception for very special mitigating cases). Yet, when we say "we ought to be generous", there is a greater amount of subjectivity. Is the generosity the same when we talk about a millionaire and when we talk about a beggar? There's another way where they differ. Morals, are more preoccupied with a certain kind of action (or behaviour), but virtues are usually more concerned with the kind of person someone is. When we talk about what kind of person someone is, that is necessarily a subjective matter, and one which makes much more sense to talk about from a personal perspective, and not an aggregate perspective.
What does this mean? When we talk about virtues, when we want to encourage others to be more selfless, generous, compassionate and gracious, it is not very productive to talk and argue about it from a very objective (aggregate) point of view (I think it might still be possible, but probably not very productive), such as we do when talking about morality and ethics in general, or when we talk about singapore and singaporeans in general. Virtues are, by nature, subjective attributes, and it is most productive to talk about them subjectively. Instead of saying, "We singaporeans should be more gracious/compassionate because etc.", we should ask instead, "What kind of person do you want to be?", "If you can help it, would you rather be a more selfless, generous or compassionate person?", "If you can't help it, why not? Is there anything you can do to change that?"
I suspect many of us find talking about virtues subjectively (as compared to morals objectively) to be less convincing, because it appears to be less philosophical, less objective, and hence less "intelligent" or less scholarly (or worse, mere rhetoric). Actually there is a school of philosophical ethics based on virtues (and not morals). Also, it is because we are by default, naturally embodied beings with a human psychology, with our own personal individual lives, with our own varied experiences of interaction with friends, family and other people on an individual level, that we find talking from a subjective point of view more intuitive (and easier to understand) than an objective point of view. Ethics is about how we ought to live our lives. But yet, it appears to me at least, we cannot talk about ethics without talking about how we individually want to live our own life.
One final point about virtues. Although selflessness, generosity, compassion and grace are good things (very good things in fact) and they ought to be encouraged, they are not the be all end all. Cognitive Dissonance wrote about social work, and said that although such virtues are indeed necessary for the profession, that alone is not sufficient to make a difference. Much more is needed. Hard work, the correct kind of skills, knowledge and training, for example. KTM likes to label some individuals as "bleeding hearts". What does he mean by that? He means that when it comes to most social issues or public policy, good intentions alone may be necessary to, but are not sufficient enough, to make the difference. It is good intentions, plus something else, be it wisdom, effort, unwillingness to give up, courage, or even pragmatism. After all, prudence is one of the four cardinal virtues.
Heavenly Sword laments that everybody around him appears to be self-centered.
Zyberzitizen writes that compassion and selflessness is in our human nature, but this trait is lost when we become too engrossed in being pragmatic.
Epilogos writes that charity is an important (necessary?) part of society, although the reputation of charitable organizations in Singapore has taken a hit due to NKF.
Cognitive Dissonance writes in the capacity of a social worker, and states that compassion and generosity is necessary but insufficient to be successful in doing social work.
In two previous posts on this blog, I urged bloggers to display charity and graciousness when dealing with other bloggers during disagreement, as well as attempting to explain a dichotomy between an individual (personal) point of view, and an aggregate ("objective") point of view.
Lastly, is the long standing issue about the lack of grace and courtesy among Singaporeans in general, such as not allowing passengers to alight first on the MRT.
Also, due to the recent hanging of Iwuchukwu Amara Tochi, the blogosphere is buzzing with activity with regards to capital punishment in the past few days. I will not talk about the death penalty in this article, but I will address it in my next post, which is a follow-up to this article.
***
Selflessness, generosity, compassion, grace. These are all virtues. These virtues are not just desirable, but perhaps, as Epiologos stated, essential to the sustenance of society. But are we morally obligated to display such virtues? In other words, if we fail to display these virtues, are we somehow morally wrong? One reply to that question is "of course not". If we are obligated to display selflessness, say, then how is that display truly "selfless"? Acting out of obligation, even moral obligation, seems somewhat contrary to the spirit and the meaning of such virtues. Now this is the question, if virtues are not obligatory, then we probably cannot demand anybody to display such virtues. Is it even possible to argue that one ought to display such virtues (albeit in an non-obligatory way)?
Well perhaps, if you allow me to "appeal to your good nature", to quote Mambo Happyfeet. This is the next question: do Singaporeans have any "good nature" left to appeal to? To be honest, on some days, (like Heavenly Sword) I am pessimistic. On other days, like Zyberzitizen, I feel that surely, there must be at least some shred of desire in everybody to be virtuous. Not that I believe the desire to be virtuous is innate or universal (as Zyberzitizen seems to be suggesting), but surely we've been taught since were young to strive to be virtuous, and surely there has to be at least some residual effects of that indoctrination?
Or perhaps, it is possible to argue that it is in everybody's best interest that we each try to be virtuous. When everybody becomes virtuous, everybody benefits, including yourself. There are two issues with this. Firstly, are we not appealing to self-interest when we do this? And if so, is it possible to argue for say, selflessness, on basis of self-interest? Secondly, this is a prisoner's dilemma situation. Let me illustrate this using the example of being a passenger on the MRT.
I am a passenger on the MRT, and I can either (A) not let passengers alight first or (B) allow passengers to alight first. There are other people waiting to boarding the MRT as well. In my mind, I'm thinking, they can either (A1) not let passengers alight first, or (B1) let passengers alight first. If (A1) occurs, I can either do (A) or (B). If I do (A), it is unpleasant, but I have a good chance of grabbing a seat. If I do (B), it is equally as unpleasant, and I have less chance of grabbing a seat. If (B1) occurs, I can either do (A) or (B). If I do (A), I have the best chance of grabbing a seat. If (B) occurs, it is pleasant, but I no longer stand such a good chance of grabbing a seat. In either (A1) or (B1), it is in my best self interest to choose (A) instead of (B), so if I'm being motivated by self-interest alone, I will always choose (A) instead of (B). Now, everybody waiting for the MRT will similarly be aware of this rationalization, and hence everybody will choose (A), resulting in (A)+(A1). Note that despite knowing that (B)+(B1) is better than (A)+(A1), because of the self-interested nature of the individuals involved, we will still end up choosing (A)+(A1). So appealing to self-interest is another no-go here.
Perhaps there is one other way to look at it. To do that I need to introduce another concept to contrast with virtue, and for the lack of a better term, I will use the noun 'moral'. An example of a moral is "murder is wrong". A moral is a principle which all humans ("moral agents") are morally obligated to adhere to. Failure to adhere to such principles imply that the moral agent has done something immoral, or has been immoral. How does morals contrast from virtues? Virtues are not morally binding, eg it is good to be generous, but you are not immoral (morally obligated) if you fail to be generous.
[For the more philosophically sophisticated: the term "moral" need not necessarily refer to a deontological principle. It may be a rule in rule utilitarianism, or the utilitarian principle itself.]
Why did I introduce morals? I want to bring up the dichotomy between an individual personal perspective and an aggregate, non-personal perspective. Morals make more sense in an aggregate perspective and virtues make more sense in an individual perspective. A moral is universal, and has less subjectivity (but there's still some) compared to a virtue. When we say "murder is wrong", we mean murder is wrong, universally, for all moral agents, period (with perhaps some exception for very special mitigating cases). Yet, when we say "we ought to be generous", there is a greater amount of subjectivity. Is the generosity the same when we talk about a millionaire and when we talk about a beggar? There's another way where they differ. Morals, are more preoccupied with a certain kind of action (or behaviour), but virtues are usually more concerned with the kind of person someone is. When we talk about what kind of person someone is, that is necessarily a subjective matter, and one which makes much more sense to talk about from a personal perspective, and not an aggregate perspective.
What does this mean? When we talk about virtues, when we want to encourage others to be more selfless, generous, compassionate and gracious, it is not very productive to talk and argue about it from a very objective (aggregate) point of view (I think it might still be possible, but probably not very productive), such as we do when talking about morality and ethics in general, or when we talk about singapore and singaporeans in general. Virtues are, by nature, subjective attributes, and it is most productive to talk about them subjectively. Instead of saying, "We singaporeans should be more gracious/compassionate because etc.", we should ask instead, "What kind of person do you want to be?", "If you can help it, would you rather be a more selfless, generous or compassionate person?", "If you can't help it, why not? Is there anything you can do to change that?"
I suspect many of us find talking about virtues subjectively (as compared to morals objectively) to be less convincing, because it appears to be less philosophical, less objective, and hence less "intelligent" or less scholarly (or worse, mere rhetoric). Actually there is a school of philosophical ethics based on virtues (and not morals). Also, it is because we are by default, naturally embodied beings with a human psychology, with our own personal individual lives, with our own varied experiences of interaction with friends, family and other people on an individual level, that we find talking from a subjective point of view more intuitive (and easier to understand) than an objective point of view. Ethics is about how we ought to live our lives. But yet, it appears to me at least, we cannot talk about ethics without talking about how we individually want to live our own life.
One final point about virtues. Although selflessness, generosity, compassion and grace are good things (very good things in fact) and they ought to be encouraged, they are not the be all end all. Cognitive Dissonance wrote about social work, and said that although such virtues are indeed necessary for the profession, that alone is not sufficient to make a difference. Much more is needed. Hard work, the correct kind of skills, knowledge and training, for example. KTM likes to label some individuals as "bleeding hearts". What does he mean by that? He means that when it comes to most social issues or public policy, good intentions alone may be necessary to, but are not sufficient enough, to make the difference. It is good intentions, plus something else, be it wisdom, effort, unwillingness to give up, courage, or even pragmatism. After all, prudence is one of the four cardinal virtues.
Monday, January 29, 2007
update: break over
i've decided to end my break early, possibly spurred on by these words from gayle in her final post:
The good, the bad and the ugly have all crowded their way into the blogosphere, and I can see this in my readers -- more and more of the latter, perhaps.
more and more ugly blogs huh. i do believe this blog isn't one of them (hopefully). and if that's so, then i want to do my part to take up and continue Gayle's original cause in the blogosphere: "to make others aware, to encourage public discourse, to help people think".
the break from blogging (including not reading blogs) has been very good. very restful to not check Intelligent Singaporean everyday, read every link, think about the posts, think about whether or not to comment or whether or not to blog something in response, and actually spend time thinking about what to say if i do blog/comment. very restful indeed =P. i highly recommend taking a break to those overworked bloggers who seem to be spending too much time online *cough* *KTM* *cough*. =P
during the duration of this break, i had the privilege to have dinner and coffee with fellow bloggers, Cognitive Dissonance, and on another occasion, Aaron Ng and Heavenly Sword. i would like to thank all three bloggers for such wonderful company and much delightful conversation. =)
i'm thinking of taking this blog on a slightly new direction. firstly, i will write a series of essays elaborating upon my submitted article to Singapore Angle (on "religious discourse"), some of which are responses to some of the comments i've received. after which, i may actually do some "religious discourse" itself on this blog, perhaps starting with issues related to religion and homosexuality. i will also continue to write stuff here and there on current issues which i feel i might be able to offer insight, and i will probably kao beh a few more times about the lack of communication and respect among bloggers =P. i will however, probably write at a much slower pace, since my offline life now is indeed much more busy than it used to be.
i'm not so self-absorbed to think i got "fans". but i do know that some of you folks do check my blog regularly. hope you guys like the stuff which i'm going to write from now onwards, and they give you new food for thought.
cheers =)
The good, the bad and the ugly have all crowded their way into the blogosphere, and I can see this in my readers -- more and more of the latter, perhaps.
more and more ugly blogs huh. i do believe this blog isn't one of them (hopefully). and if that's so, then i want to do my part to take up and continue Gayle's original cause in the blogosphere: "to make others aware, to encourage public discourse, to help people think".
the break from blogging (including not reading blogs) has been very good. very restful to not check Intelligent Singaporean everyday, read every link, think about the posts, think about whether or not to comment or whether or not to blog something in response, and actually spend time thinking about what to say if i do blog/comment. very restful indeed =P. i highly recommend taking a break to those overworked bloggers who seem to be spending too much time online *cough* *KTM* *cough*. =P
during the duration of this break, i had the privilege to have dinner and coffee with fellow bloggers, Cognitive Dissonance, and on another occasion, Aaron Ng and Heavenly Sword. i would like to thank all three bloggers for such wonderful company and much delightful conversation. =)
i'm thinking of taking this blog on a slightly new direction. firstly, i will write a series of essays elaborating upon my submitted article to Singapore Angle (on "religious discourse"), some of which are responses to some of the comments i've received. after which, i may actually do some "religious discourse" itself on this blog, perhaps starting with issues related to religion and homosexuality. i will also continue to write stuff here and there on current issues which i feel i might be able to offer insight, and i will probably kao beh a few more times about the lack of communication and respect among bloggers =P. i will however, probably write at a much slower pace, since my offline life now is indeed much more busy than it used to be.
i'm not so self-absorbed to think i got "fans". but i do know that some of you folks do check my blog regularly. hope you guys like the stuff which i'm going to write from now onwards, and they give you new food for thought.
cheers =)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
