Saturday, October 19, 2013
Ethical Principles explained by Mathematical Logic Pt4
4. The counter-revolution
4.1 The aftermath of the modern idealism:
.... The age of the absolute morality came into the 20th century, and still influences this world in this 21st century. The idealism dominating in this era has motivated human-beings to aspire in creating their ideal world which is beyond what they could imagine within their knowledge and experience as well as the resource limitation which this earth contains. The imagination of this modern idealism is something which the idealism of Plato was not able to inspire human-beings to think and believe in. Aristotle would have been shocked by the bizarre imagination of the modern idealism which the idealism of his teacher Plato had even never gone beyond to. The new methodology of drawing the new idealist principle completely deviates from the philosophical axiom and the wisdom of life which were invented by these two great ancient philosophers. The achievement of the human race motivated by the modern idealism was astronomical enough to encourage the technology to be developed and the scientific endevour to be expanded as seen in our currently living world. John Locke said a big ideal dream is an effective engine for us to encourage us to devote ourselves to put an enormous effort of innovating a new technology and establishing an advanced world structure into practice. But, John Locke would not imagine that human-beings started claiming that their dream "will/must come" in the near future, and their project is in their hand as though they have already transformed themselves to become God.
Nevertheless, this modern idealism also has brought various kinds of havoc and unrest which human-beings could ever been able to predict to happen. In the world politics, the modern idealism inspired by Kant and Hegel caused this world to create the devout human right movement as well as the fanatic ethnocentrism and the socialist empire. Even though some political philosophers would disagree, these three big political movements are rooted from the same transcendental idealism imagined by Kantian deontology. The core members of Nazis actually fundamentally believed that their ethnocentric policy was an absolute necessity after having thought and evaluated their own thought again and again, and then they came to draw the conclusion to declare that their planned policy corresponds to what the absolute morality suggests for the future of the human race. As explained in the previous chapter, the idea of socialism was inspired by the human right theory. These socialists believe that we will finally achieve in establishing the utopia where all human-beings can become equally rich materially and spiritually, and no longer have to worry about the conflict for obtaining the natural resource in this planet. Plato's idealism regarded that the inequality of possession and the mind level is inevitable even in the fairly administrated political system, and this new idealism born in the modern era would have astonished Plato for being way too much idealistic more than Plato was. Pragmatism and Logical-Positivism, the philosophical theories inspired by Kantian metaphysics, have made any academic subject to be over-specialised, and then started demanding all human-beings to seek their verification of their reasoning processes by the authorised validity established by the peer assessment by these academic and political authorities. Also, these two theories regard what we judge things as is relative to how it is measure by a particular measurement chosen to be used. So, it has become nonsense to have our own unique reasoning process and stick to our own belief in something we would like to keep pursuing in our entire life span. We have never know how the world wide political movement based on the ethics based on the belief in the absolute morality will turns up to affect the life of human-beings. But, there are already some alerts of the dangers which the right idealism inspired by Kantian deontology will bring over to this world. ... As they say "Atlas shrugged" when the expectation of human-beings is heavily burdened on the earth which Atlas sustains.
4.2 Rise of the counter-revolution: Re-evaluating the antiquity and the new progress
There is a strong counter-revolutionary act against the natural right theory which was initially created by John Locke and modified and advanced by Immanuel Kant. Of course, we may have our own ideal as our objective goal we would like to keep pursing and aspire in achieving it. But, this ideal should be considered to be an achievable, and must be something balancing humans' want and need and the resource limit this world can afford. There are several schools of ethics challenging against both the traditional natural right theory and those ethical principles influenced by Immanuel Kant who was influenced by the natural right.
Both of the ethical principles introduced in the previous chapters regard that human-beings can reincarnate something we have imagined as long as the process follows the right rigorous principle like a mathematical axiom. By contrast, there is a strong scepticism about their belief in the ethical principle existing like mathematical axiom. The ethical principle should not be rigorous as much as mathematical axiom, and we should be free from the unified moral entrepreneurship. Because the amount of knowledge, experience, and strength of sensation which human-beings are endowed with are too small to be capable enough to collectively cooperate to establish the ideal world, to create the one unified moral code, and predict the availability of resources and technologies in the future.
Not all mathematical theorems are based on what the axiom implies. For example, the Pythagorean theorem was discovered by Pythagoras's own observation of actual objects in the real world, and was not referred to the mathematical axiom to create his own theorem. Statistics deals with the data collected from survey and experiment with people and actual objects. Statistics is less axiomatic as it rather deals with how the real world actually is. Both the infinity and the complex number are valid to exist in the world of mathematics by means of the axiom. But they are rarely used in statistics. All in all, these stories show that the universal fundamental principle is not applicable to all the situation for both mathematics so that it should not be for ethics either.
Because ethical theories cannot prove their validity based on the self-deduction process like mathematics and natural science, the validity of the morally right actions which the moral code of these theories suggest to take cannot be proven. So, only what we can do is allowing all different individuals to freely choose their action and decision making process according to their need and want required and the things available for them to take to use at the current moment, and then burden the responsibility for what they have chosen on them. Their responsibility should be to pay the various internal costs incurred by their action and compensate for the external costs and the pain caused to the others.
The moral judgement should be based on how the consequence derived from their action deserving themselves at most and the exchange with the others which maximises the mutual benefit of both the parties turns up to be. When the consequence turns up to be beneficial to them, their choice deriving this consequence should be continued. When the consequence turns up to be undesirable, they should amend their decision making process and reforming the outcomes to be more desirable.
All individuals in this world have got their own various different cultural codes and their own unique individual situation. These different individuals are easily offended by subjectively judging their own belief and reason to live by following their own will. So, in order to live with mutual respect among individual human-beings, we should neither judge the morality of their action with our prejudice nor impose one universal ethical principle even though it is claimed to be secular and neutral. The optimum solution is to let them live with their life style unless they invade ours.
Human-beings should feel positive about their choice based on their rationality to predict the outcomes. But, it is also important to realise and accept that their choice is also affected by many surrounding situations which these individual human-beings cannot control. These situations externally affect their choice in spite of their need and/or want, and then inevitably divert their choice from their own initial will. The modern idealists introduced in the previous two chapters have ignored about this fact. So, this is one of the reason why both aspiring to establish the ideal world and imposing the universal moral principle cannot be perfectly fulfilled. Then, it is not a productive way of living to regret about our choice; We should repent and improve it instead. Furthermore, it may cause human-beings to always feel like miserable when they live by always expecting the future to be better than the past and the present. It can be more mentally healthy to appreciate their past as well as their present to be enjoyable.
4.4 Reality and Consciousness:
We human-beings are enabled by the facility called the the consciousness (Someone translates as spirit) to observe and sense actual objects existing in real, and then memorise our experience in them. Locke admitted that we rely on the consciousness to understand about the world we live in. But, he suggested to consider the imaginable unreal factors which the consciousness enables only to imagine but does not guarantee to enable to produce in real. Kant, and those who have been influenced by him, seemed to suggested to be highly sceptical about the consciousness because anything the consciousness enables to experience, feel, infer, know, and reason can be biased (irrational and/or superstitious), or simply deviate from the categorical imperative (Morally valid) (i.e. it can be hypothetical). By contrast, both the principle in the antiquity and this principle newly explained in this chapter claim that the consciousness of us, human-beings, must be the fundamental principle of understanding the world we live.
Consciousness (Someone translates as spirit) and Conceptualisation. For instance, rather than we are told to think a board with a wide, plane, and shallow shape, which stand on the ground with 4 legs as a table for the interest of others, we conceptualise this kind of things as a table for our own convenience. Many sorts of conceputalisation can be hypothetical, which Kant defined as ethically nonsense. But, hypothesis itself is a very important tool of our life. It can be right or wrong. But, we have never known until we observe the consequence.
Moreover, when we rely on the fundamental principle outside our consciousness, we are more likely to reduce our honest feeling about beauty and sublime. When this happens, we may start saying "Oh, that's nice, and I'll never forget about it", people started saying "Why?" Do we actually need to think why about such a feeling? Those who are influenced by Kant always say "But, that's not true", and treating anything challenging the mainstream perspective as deviants. This is very dangerous to undermine the honest feeling about beauty and sublime coming from the consciousness. When we start sticking to the unknown abstract universal fundamental principle instead of the direct feeling coming from consciousness, it will be the cause of the havoc and the unrest mentioned in the first part of this chapter to occur.
4.5. The alternative logic:
The alternative ethical principle explained by mathematical logic is as shown by the venn diagramme above. This is essentially same as the one shown in the chapter 1, and this one explains about it with more details.
In the formula of this mathematical logic, any A (A1 and A2) denotes what exists, or what we can observe and sense, in the reality, i.e. ∀A = ℝ\0, and A denotes non-existence i.e. A=0 (zero). As explained in the previous two chapters, both Locke and Kant claimed that there are more than A=ℝ\0 A=0, and there is the ideal which we have to aspire to make it possible outside what we can observe in the reality.
Unlike John Locke's world view, this principle separates the imaginable world from the substantial world. This regards that the imaginable world is created of the knowledge gained from the substantial world and the records of the imaginary world such as books, pictures, and music.
These sets of knowledge are denoted as Ai where i∋(1,2,...,r). Then the combination of knowledge can be denoted as the interaction of A1 and A2 i.e A1 ∩ A2, and the union of A1 and A2 i.e. A1 ∪ A2. Then, these combination may create A1 ∪ ( A1 ∩ A2 ) and ( A1 ∩ A2 ) ∪ A2, and then it may create the furthermore sophisticated idea of A1 ∩ A2 to create an alternative new idea of A e.g. A'.
In order to make this newly designed idea, obtained from this logical inference process, possible in the substantial world, then this process has to be put into practice by scientifically experimenting, constructing as an architecture or an artifact, implementing as policy in practice, drawing/painting on a campus board, or playing with musical instruments.
In this process, there are several possibilities that the imagined thoughts cannot be put into practice, or there can be an unexpected incidence to obtain the new knowledge during the attempt of this practical experiment.
A1 and A2 cannot be compatible i.e. A1 ∩ A2 cannot exist in the substantial world.
A2 may simply imply A1 i.e. A1 ∩ A2 = A2 itself.
Suppose there is a case that A1 and A2 can be combined i.e. ∃ A1 ∪ A2, but it is not known how the part A1 ∩ A2 looks like. When both A1 and A2 are experimented to be combined i.e. showing A1 ∪ A2 in the substantial world, then A1 ∩ A2 might accidentally come up as a distinctive form of the substance.
When A1 ∪ A2 was wanted to be created, and the imagination showed that something like A1 ∩ A2 was required to create A1 ∪ A2, but nobody had not yet found what A1 ∩ A2 exactly was. Then, the inventor started looking for a substance which would work as A1 ∩ A2 the bond of A1 ∪ A2. Then, when the inventor finds out a substance which works as the bond A1 ∩ A2, then A1 ∪ A2 will become to be the real in the substantial world.
Therefore, the infinity, the phenomenon that any real number powered by zero becomes 1, and the complex number exists in the mathematical world, one of the imaginable world, but have not been proven in the substantial world.
The fundamental moral principle which Kant and those who are influenced by him will restrict the new discoveries shown above.
Even though the consequence desired to be induced is denoted as A', but the process to discover A' from A1 and A2 such as A1 ∩ A2 and A1 ∪ A2 can be against the categorical imperative i.e. morally invalid.
The action of A1 ∪ A2 which induces A1 ∩ A2 can fulfill what the categorical imperative suggests i.e. the moral duty. But, the consequence which is naturally and unintentionally induced from combining A1 and A2 may eventually leads to some undesirable consequence. For example, suppose A' is an undesirable consequence, and a part of A1 ∩ A2. Even though A1 ∪ A2 fulfills the categorical imperative, the result from creating A1 ∩ A2 from this action may induce the outcome A' which is the element of A1 ∩ A2.
4.6 The counter-Revolutionary Ethical Principle and Legal Positivism
Legal Positivism is different from Logical Positivism. Both philosophies follow positive/objective statements. E.g. When the combination of A1 and A2 holds, then A’ “does exist” / “will exist”. The difference between them is that their principle of their logic.
As explained in the last Chapter (Ch3), the logical positivism regards that there is an absolute universal principle which verifies the validity of our actions and thoughts, and it often refers to some natural scientific factor like the brain cell function as the root cause of the motivation of actions and thoughts. Also, the logical positivism claims that believing our own cause, and described that having our own unique cause, belief, reason, and ideology are pathetic because it describes senses as merely biological functions and/or illusions.
By contrast, Legal Positivism provides more freedom of choices and will in its logics by detaching its logics from the absolute universal moral principle. This ethics regards of its principle is what individuals select as an objective measurement to determine their actions and future plans, and this may vary across different time periods, places, and occasions. The objective principle can be maximising the utility of them (their greatest sum of pleasures minus their lowest sum of pains), their own cultural norm and value, and their sense of beauty and sublime. They are free to choose their own principle owing to their want and their surrounding situation as long as they are ready to bear their responsibility to face the consequence induced by their action. The feasibility of choosing their action and future plan will be determined by competition, negotiation, and trade. So, it allows ethics to be more flexible while it still remains its discretional logics like shown in the Venn diagram shown above.
On the other hand, the statements Locke, Kant and those who are influenced by them frequently use are very normative E.g. A’ must/ought to be achieved so that A1 and A2 should be combined. (Then, categorising Locke, Kant and those who are influenced by them as the Normativists here) In addition, these Normativists would accuse the way Legal Positivists define their principle because it is hypothetical i.e. morally invalid. But, the valid universal principle which they would admit to verify seems to require a sizably long term to achieve in where it may face various unexpected obstacles externally affecting humans’ mind on the process of achieving it.
If the process to induce A’ is not found, then they may need to spend tremendously long time, huge amount of resources, and enormous efforts to convince the others. If combining A1 and A2 is sure to induce A’, then, if the combination of A1 and A2 does not fulfil what their moral principle, they suffer from the severe dilemma of choosing their action and plan. Furthermore, even though the combination of A1 and A2 fulfils the moral principle and is predicted to induce A’, because A’ is something rarefied as much as these Nomativists aspire to accomplish in, there is a proportionally high possibility that the process of heading toward A’ diverts from the initial goal of A’ due to its sizably costly process and/or some unexpected obstacles.
The legal positivism suggests the process of pursing the objectives has to be prudential enough to maintain the aim to be clear and achievable, avoid diversion from the objective, and refrain from wasting time, resource, and efforts of clinging to the ideal morality of the actions and the plans unlike the abstract costly rarefied universal moral principle. In a liberal democratic civilisation, the flexibility of the Legal Positivist ethical principle prevails to deserve citizens there because they are open to negotiate to whether preserve or modify their law by means of their favour. The objective of citizens has to be providing them with liberty and life security, and the law is simply a tool to achieve in this objective purpose.
Nevertheless, when the law becomes rigid in the long term as the Normativists want rather than the tool flexibly changing over time, place and occasion, citizens may have to sacrifice a substantially high degree of freedom in exchange for accomplishing what the universal moral principle demands for. Then, the law will turn to become the bodiless authority which preaches over citizens to conduct how their life style to be and command their economy to be morally right rather than traded freely with a prudential fiscal policy. Therefore, even in a liberal democratic civilisation, the rigid universal morality seems to reincarnate an autocracy in the system.
Even a vile oppressive dictatorship, if this regime wishes for its long stable regime, needs to preserve the consistent legal codes which secure the stability of the order. Also, it is extremely costly to keep pointing sword or gun at the masses back i.e. fearing them with violence to enforce them to obey all the time. So, this regime needs to provide their obedient masses with pleasures and the life security in exchange for their obedience. Then, both the oppressive legal code and the rule of the trade between the dictator and the obedient masses should be clear, easy to understand, prudential, and achievable. When the measurement of their trade agreement is hypothetical as the legal positivism suggests i.e. detaching legality from morality in this case, there tends to be a limit on fulfilling the desire of both powerful and powerless parties. The powerful members’ hypothetical desire faces its limit of increasing when the marginal utility gained from its privilege is maximised. This oppressive regime needs to secure the utility of powerless members at least to let them survive and to maintain their obedience.
When a vile oppressive dictatorship adapts the moral universalist principle like the Normativists introduced in this essay, the dictator will use the good moral objective as her/his false promise to manipulate the obedient masses. The desires detached from morality such as handling corruption exchange for seeking pleasure and creating unfair rules deserving only a particular cohort of her/his peers, have a limit to satisfy their desire, and visible for the masses to observe even enough to become able to question their authority if the exploitation becomes excessively harsh. By contrast, when a morality is attached on this regime, because the oppressive dictator is the leader of this political system, when the masses think of their belonging political system as divine (moral-oriented), they may start obeying their oppressive leader not only as a leader of their divine state but also as a guardian of its divinity itself under a misapprehension. Then, the dictator takes an action or plan for the future can be taken under the name of morality, and then the excess power usage will be hidden under the curtain of morality.
The legal positivism tends to be considered as the base logic of the civil law (The Roman Law). Because the Civil Law is the “code-base” law, the law makers apply their positivist logics to constructing the consistent law codes of the Civil Law, and then their statements written in the law have to be positive; not normative.
The philosophy of Legal Positivism was also developed by British philosophers such as Hobbes, Bentham, and Austin in 18th and 19th century in order to create the new principle of the moral and legislation in Great Britain. In the contemporary Britain, these progressive philosophers attempted to create the new political movement to detach British legal system from the dominance of morality and traditionalism. The moral code was too abstract and superstitious to calculate the level of rewards and punishment which is equitable to what individuals have provided themselves and the others with. They expected the judgments to become able to focus more on the future rather than sticking to referring to the past cases. Therefore, they invented the new progressive legal philosophy which adapted the hypothetical but objective measurements of judgements to the legal system. This reform has enabled the justice to provide individuals with the equitable exchanges of trades and legal sanctions. Also, their invention of various forms of the algebra in this system has enabled individuals to calculate their cost and benefit in the time serious which forecasts their expected future outcomes i.e. the consequence of their actions and thoughts.