Interaction I had with a teacher.
Me:
-
I wonder what exactly qualifies as a “Flat Earther”. Is the way you determine this is by some “journalist” walking around the street and questioning people if they think the Earth is flat? I think if somebody came up to me with that question I’d tell them I believe in its flatness to mock them. Well, yesterday I was hearing about how China is to blame for Mexico and America’s drug problems. I was also hearing from this Indian man about how China is financing Pakistan to attack India. I, for one, would rather show up to a flat Earth conference then those self-help ones. Sounds more fun. One day I should investigate some of the claims made by Indian nationalists for fun. It really doesn’t surprise me that she’d make the claim, and I also don’t know if she gave any evidence to show her claim to be true.
-
Realistically, it seems to me that conspiracy theories are just ideas that are labeled dangerous by those in charge. If they were simply false and didn’t matter they wouldn’t need a label of “conspiracy”. When you call something a conspiracy theory you intend to discredit it and call the person saying it a wacko. Well, like yesterday, hearing about how about Mexico’s drug problems are because of China sounds like a shifting of the discussion to me. I bet it has a whole lot more to do with the Mexican government’s impotence, corruption, and incompetence than it has to do with China. Or as it often happens in Africa, everything is the fault of “imperialists”. Even after decades of largely ineffective self-rule, how quickly they’ll turn around and blame it on somebody else. This quote:
An aspiring Flat Earth community leader was arrested for trying to distribute Flat Earth leaflets at an elementary school. A pop star’s ex-husband became curious about Flat Earth and other conspiracy theories, tipping him into a rabbit hole that led to his participation in a conspiracy-fueled rally in Washington, DC, that ended with other participants invading the US Capitol building.
This one stood out to me because I feel I was entirely right about this book. Just by looking at the cover I was able to tell the type of book it is. Didn’t take very long to arrive there too. This was only the short prologue. Though, I am glad she mentions about how the history of “Flat Earth” is a lot more complicated than most think. That along with the popular story of Galileo are two of the cheapest ways that people love to attack Christianity. Wonder how true it is about what she says about the origin of that being Washington Irving.
Teacher:
Definitely, one could levy the charge of “conspiracy theory” to discredit an idea in a baseless way. I expect people have. But it’s not too hard to distinguish a conspiracy theory from a theory about conspiracies, if you see what I mean. It’s about fallibilism, and evidence, and grounds for disproof. And also something a bit harder to pin down; we’ll read Chesterton’s fantastic essay “Orthodoxies” which speaks to that.
And this kind of fabulist thinking is definitely a Thing. People can become possessed by beliefs that are based on the idea that nothing you see is real, and that anything is possible. A theory of life like that tends to isolate them from the people around them, and pull them ever further from any reality that anyone else recognizes; and it’s very difficult to speak to, because obviously, if nothing you see is real, then all evidence is meaningless because it’s all fake. And if anything is possible, no explanation is too outlandish. In other words, basically, the whole premise of science and empiricism gets the heave-ho. :)
And they can be very dangerous - hugely dangerous.
Me:
By saying, “A theory of life like that tends to isolate them from the people around them, and pull them ever further from any reality that anyone else recognizes…,” I think you really just help me prove my point." Who establishes what a conspiracy theory is? How can something be a conspiracy theory in one country then be widely accepted in another? Who establishes the grounds for what’s a conspiracy theory and what isn’t? Who establishes or sows the seeds for the establishment of conspiracy theories? You know what I think too about how “truth” should be established? I’m a Utilitarian. If a “conspiracy theory”, if it were generally held, would better society, I would label that as the truth, even if it is something easily disproven by more knowledgeable people. Now, I don’t see how the idea of a flat Earth could possibly really benefit society, but I think it doesn’t take very long to think of ideas that just might. I think most of the things we think we really don’t have much of a reasonable basis to think that way. We as humans are illogical and superstitious, it’s just our nature. Some are more logical than others, but that, again, is no different from two thousand years ago.
A conspiracy theory is something that goes against the grain of society. You very quickly run into the problem where something can be widely accepted in one country then you go to another and nobody accepts that. How do you explain that? You could have a person be completely isolated in country A, then function completely normally in country B. Does that person simultaneously become highly dangerous in country A and completely normal in country B? What kind of standard for truth is that? Sounds like one beholden to authority to me. Is it a problem with the rulers of the country because they’re overtaken by a conspiracy theory? And, I think this last statement is completely absurd. Reality is real enough for most people to really not care. Don’t matter whether it’s real or not, you know if you break a leg it’s going to hurt a whole lot. Augustine said something kind of snarky about this,
If it is to be considered a great-souled act for a man to put himself to death, however, then such greatness certainly resided in the soul of that Cleombrotus who (the story goes), when he had read the book of Plato in which the immortality of the soul is discussed, cast himself headlong from a wall, and so departed this life for that which he believed to be a better. He was not prompted to do this by any calamity or crime, either real or imagined, which he could not manage to bear and so made away with himself. Rather, only his ‘greatness of soul’ sustained him as he eagerly embraced death and burst the sweet bonds of this life. Yet Plato himself, whom he had read, could have told him that he acted greatly rather than well. For Plato, of all people, surely would have been the first to act in the same way had he not, with that mind with which he had seen the soul’s immortality, also perceived that this should not be done: and should, indeed, be forbidden.
Teacher:
“I’m a Utilitarian. If a “conspiracy theory”, if it were generally held, would better society, I would label that as the truth, even if it is something easily disproven by more knowledgeable people. " - That’s not really Utilitarianism. Neither of the Mills or Bentham would sign up to that.
Definitely true that we’re not fundamentally logical! and a philosophy that tried to be purely logical would be not only repellent, but unreal. (Again, Chesterton. You might like that essay.) Also, quite a lot of “reality” is consensus (fact, inference, judgment - different kinds of statement) and that consensus does vary from culture to culture - though perhaps not so much as we often think. After all, we’re the same species.
But a lot of philosophy, especially 200 years of empiricism, gives us a framework to distinguish between a conspiracy theory and an empirical theory. Empirical thinking is the bedrock of the place we’re in at the moment, hence its prominence. If this were 14th century Turin, we’d absolutely be having a different conversation! But we’re not, so we aren’t. And I think it’s had a pretty good run, no? After all, we’re communicating on a device that the epistemology of 14th century Turin couldn’t possibly create. (Mind you, 14th century Turin had glorious things which we’ve lost: Neil Postman is very persuasive on this - that all technology is a Faustian bargain. But I digress.)
Me:
And why not exactly? I think it’s quite fitting in with the spirit of Utilitarianism. At its core, what Utilitarianism wants to do is bring the greatest amount of happiness to the most amount of people. If people knew (hypothetical) that after dead their soul is going to be dropped into a big lake of lava, would they not be better not knowing? Them knowing that fact would bring no tangible benefit to their lives, neither would it further any goals of humanity, it would only bring them pain from the knowledge of it. Would they not be better not knowing in the first place? And, I still don’t understand how an individual can be simultaneously dangerous and not dangerous. Unless you want to be the ultimate arbitrator of what makes something dangerous. You talk as if because some philosopher wrote a book that the great inventions of the last last 200 years were made possible. I think that’s crazy, and way overestimates the impact books like those had. It also isn’t like the idea of observation and trail and error were particularly exclusive to recent history either. It wasn’t as systematized as it is now, but those two things are really just common sense.
Me again:
Utilitarianism is focused on outcomes. There’s no inherent value in “truth”. There’s value in it to the extent that it brings more pleasure to the greatest number of people. Actions in it of themselves aren’t inherently evil, it’s the outcomes that they produce. There’s no such thing as irredeemable or dishonorable actions. If a dishonest act can produce a good result, then, under Utilitarianism, I think it’s moral. Evil is actions that produce an overwhelmingly bad result, even if they had the best of intentions.
Teacher:
Oh for sure, we’ve always observed and tried things out and made patterns. But that systematization is not just a casual shift; science emerges from a highly specific way of looking at the world, and it has been astonishingly - sometimes horribly effective. Not just one guy’s book; it’s a whole cultural stew - the Reformation, the printing press, who knows what other factors - you can see it in lines in Shakespeare and Milton, in the Royal Society’s motto “Nullius in Verba,” in Locke and Hume, etc. etc. Not just one guy: but a broad conversation.
I know what you mean about Utilitarianism, but it isn’t really just about being happy over everything else. Utilitarianism doesn’t position itself as a way to define truth, or as pitting happiness against truth. Bentham (first Utilitarian) is really talking about how we can judge the merit of actions, specifically laws (he lays this out in the “Introduction to the Principles and Morals of Legislation”). So he’s not really saying, Who cares if things are true if they make us happy? He’s really asking, Why should an action be considered wrong? And his answer is, If it’s in a category of actions that ultimately cause more pain than pleasure, that’s what makes it wrong. Very legalistic.
In fact, the falsehood thing is really interesting because that’s very much a weak spot. Bentham had no use for unreality or fictions; he was famously rather unimaginative, and detested legal fictions which he called “nonsense upon stilts” (didn’t have a ton of time for literature either, because, well, it wasn’t true.)
And yet - you are quite right that lying often protects people. That’s often why we do it, isn’t it? “You look great!” “That was a really interesting talk” etc. etc. We don’t want people to feel bad. So if we judge morality solely by the felicific calculus, surely lying isn’t necessarily bad? And yet Bentham thought it was bad. Clearly there was some other criterion that he doesn’t quite excavate….
Our response to lying is also really mixed. If your friend tells you something awful, you are likely to say “WHY DID YOU TELL ME!” At the same time, though, if you lie to someone, you have the upper hand. I think we all feel like it’s often kind to lie to others, but few of us would say, “Yes, I’d like to be the one who doesn’t know anything and who’s being led around by the nose….”
Interesting discussion! And thanks for giving me an opportunity to bust out some Bentham - focused on him in graduate school, and I’ve always liked him. Bit underrated imho.
Teacher again:
Not quite. Bentham was a legislative reformer, and laws have to deal with categories of actions, not specific events. So he was very much laying the groundwork for the morality of categories of action. Bentham has a long thing about how, for instance, killing someone who’s a huge jerk that everyone hates still isn’t OK - even though in the specific instance, that person’s death produces happiness, the fact of allowing anyone to decide who’s a death-deserving jerk ultimately is NOT conducive to happiness.
The real alternative that Bentham is rejecting is a religious foundation. Why is murder wrong? Traditionally, the answer was that ultimately it broke one of God’s commandments. But Bentham is saying, No, it’s because it makes us sad; God is not involved. That was a bit startling to many of Bentham’s contemporaries. :)
But you’re quite right that focusing on outcomes lays Utilitarianism open to the charge of being cool with dishonesty (as I rambled on about in the other post). One can indeed secure good results with dishonest actions. I can’t remember now what Bentham has to say about dishonesty - it’s been DECADES since I read Deontology or the Intro to the Principles & Morals of Legislation - but I bet he does have something to say about it. Will have to review!
Me:
One, I see I no reason why I have to align entirely with Bentham. Two, by calling myself a Utilitarian I’m saying I fundamentally agree with the assessment that the way of judging good and bad actions is by looking at the outcome: of the pleasures and the pains that are produced. Surely, if anybody accepts that, then I’d call them a Utilitarian. Getting caught up on labels seems silly to me. I think it should be taken as a standard of truth. People will get led around in society. It’s just the nature of organized living. Humans are not created equal, and some are just a whole lot more clever than others. I think a society succeeds to the extent that you can propel such people into positions of influence. The interests of all humans’ lives matter, but some have far greater potential to further the interests of society at large. So, in that sense, I believe humans are fundamentally unequal, even though all have equal worth. That would be one thing you have to think about, what are the odds of an illusion being shattered and what would be the consequences.
Societies are molded by their constitutions. The structure of a society will determine what ideals that society holds up. Then that trickles all the way down and creeps into every aspect of that society. If a constitution is old enough, then to the extent which it is it gives it credence. People then start to hold up it as truth and not as a creation of another individual. Unless you want to hold liberalism and democratic principles (which largely make up the bedrock of this society) as absolute truth, I think you have a hard time getting out of this one. I for one do not think there is an ideal form of government, so I don’t subscribe to this notion that anything besides a democracy or a republic is despotism. I think the happiness of individuals matters a whole lot more than the form of government. I think you just have to be practical when choosing between alternatives. Getting caught up on dogma I think rarely ends well. I think Afghanistan and Iraq displayed this quite clearly. It didn’t work out in Syria very well did it. People who criticize America for allying itself with non-Democratic nations I think are fools because they forget to talk about the alternative. Seems to me such people aren’t very concerned with human felicity, but with human ideology.
Also, it seems to me Utilitarianism is quite conductive to religious thinking. I think you could make some quite compelling arguments. With just a few, gives an individual a time-tested moral system. Provides a strong counter-incentive to not act badly. If gives people a place of belonging and social group. It teaches people history. It teaches people how people lived hundreds or thousands of years ago. It provides a support system. Teaches people humility. Teaches people routine. If people are forced to sit in Church for an hour or two every Sunday then they’re forced to disconnect and reflect on themselves. Encourages people to read. Gives people role models to look up to. Teaches people about respect. I don’t think most people are really capable of intelligently doing Utilitarian calculus, who are better off being told what to do. I think most people are really egoists, and what keeps them in line is the threat of the consequences. I don’t know how anybody can look at what happened to losers in wars throughout most of history and honestly say that humans in a state of nature are inherently good. Another thing I think is highly crucial is birth rates. What we’re doing is unsustainable. Either a country has to sell its soul like the UK and import millions of immigrants or it has to swallow an aging population and all the problems that brings. I think another thing it’d help is the overabundance of pathetic men that modern society has also created.
Religion ain’t a perfect solution, but it sure is better than the alternative being given to us right now. There’s a reason why Christianity is on the decline and Islam is on the rise, Islam is a much more masculine religion than Christianity is. Also, I think you can combine religion and science. Religion throughout all its existence has compromised. You can see this in states like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, where I think they do a reasonable job of integrating religion into society while simultaneously not falling into backwardness like Iran or Afghanistan. I think having a national religion is fine if other religions are allowed to exist within the state. Teaching a national religion in school I think would be a good thing. You just need a moderate and non-zealot government. Religion is also one of the few things than can connect with everyone. Realistically, I think there’s a reason why philosophy has always been a hobby of an idle few.
I’m also hearing a lot of Bentham thought. I’m really not hearing any reasons why you shouldn’t take Utilitarianism to, what it seems to me, its natural conclusions.