Philosopher views
CLAIMS TO UNVERSAL KNOWLEDGE CREATE AN EPISTIMOLOGICAL TRAP
Download 5.81 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Kurt Baier
CLAIMS TO UNVERSAL KNOWLEDGE CREATE AN EPISTIMOLOGICAL TRAP1. CLAIMS TO UNVERSAL KNOWLEDGE CONTROL THE SOCIAL BODY Michael Clifford, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Mississippi State University, POLITICAL GENEALOGY AFTER FOUCAULT, 2001. p. 98-99. The phrase “power/knowledge” to a great extent expresses the intimacy of discourse and power relations. Power proceeds through the deployment of various knowledge for the normalization and cohesion of the social body. Knowledge both guides and sanctions practices of subjugation and objectification that at once govern and define individuals. The production of knowledge, in turn, requires entrenched institutional apparatuses (such as education, science, media) where it can emerge and be disseminated. Knowledge must conform to rules of acceptance, diffusion and consumption that go beyond the laws of rarity and exclusion governing the emergence of statements within a discursive formation. In fact, the embodiment of knowledge in real institutional and social practices makes it an essential feature of the network of power relations itself. At the juncture of power/knowledge, discourse becomes “a formidable tool of control and power.” Indeed, at this juncture it becomes virtually impossible to distinguish discourse and power since real practices of spatialization and differentiation are immediately and inseparably attended by knowledges that explain what these bodies are in truth, what they need, how they should be organized. Truth is not something outside of power; rather, it is the concrete forms effected by the juncture of power and knowledge. Every society is governed by a regime of truth, which consists at the same time of (1) “the types of discourses which it accepts and makes function are true,” and (2) political structures whose function is to articulate such discourses in concrete forms onto the social body. 2. TRUTH CLAIMS CREATE PRISONS OF SUBJECTIFICATION THAT ARE IMPOSED ON PEOPLE Michael Clifford, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Mississippi State University, POLITICAL GENEALOGY AFTER FOUCAULT, 2001. p. 99-100. A relation of self to self can be understood as a “form of reflexivity,” says Foucault - that is, as a mode of self-examination and assessment. Discourses of truth can be understood as “forms of rationality” as a thematic complex of representations bearing on common objects and held together by certain principles or standards of organization whose validity is internal to the complex itself. In technologies of the self we have “forms of rationality applied by the human subject to itself.” While it is appropriate to speak of a discourse of truth peculiar to the self, the construction of such discourse involves the application of forms of rationality, or discourses, which come from sources independent of the individual. Religious discourses, discourses of philosophy and medicine, political or juridical discourses, and (perhaps most important to modern subjectivity) the disciplines of the human sciences such discourse are applied by individuals to themselves in the constitution of themselves as subjects. Such discourses carry their own values, norms, expectations to which, through the process of subjectivacation, the individual feels obliged to conform, thus comprising part of the ethical dimension of a relation of the self with self. More often then not, however, these discourses are imposed on individuals.
INTRODUCTION Kurt Baier (Dunedin, New Zealand) is professor emeritus of philosophy at the University of Pittsburgh. Author of the acclaimed work The Moral Point of View he has published numerous articles on reason and philosophy. Kurt Baier is a moral philosopher whose works and ideas have spanned forty years. His work has changed with the times, but still the core remains the same. The crux of Baier’s work is focused upon practical reason and its affirmative role in morality. Baier argues that morality can generally be based in individuals and does not have to be grounded in ‘God’. Accordingly, we can find answers to important human questions without recourse to faith in a supernatural deity. REASON, RATIONALITY For Baier, individuals are acting in reason when we seek a good life that is based upon our own standards. Reason is generally the ability to assess something as a good thing and act in accordance with it by some motive. Individuals must be able to judge relevant actions and motivations. Early in Baier’s earliest work The Moral Point of View, on page 161, there are important differences between motive and reason. “First, it is a difference between the types of behavior to which the explanations are properly applicable; explanations in terms of the agent’s reason refer to behavior involving deliberation, explanations in terms of motives do not…reasons refer to supposed facts, ‘motive’ to the agent’s behavioral disposition.” Beyond just a generic description of reason and rationality, Baier’s work is largely premised upon what he refers to as ‘practical reason’. First, it is important to understand that reason can be grounded upon two sides, a subjective, and objective view. The subjective view can be a conception of “each individual’s unflawed conception of the preferred life for herself,” (The Rational Moral Order, p.268) or a person’s internal pure conception of the good life for herself. Though the distinction in this sentence is rhetorically minute, the importance of the distinction to Baier’s philosophy is not. The preferred life is not always the life that is ‘good’ for the individual. A debate coach may prefer to live a season of sacrifice for her or his students, but that life may not be the best directly for a debate coaches physical well being. Baier refers to the former as ‘self-anchored’ and to the latter as ‘self-grounded’. On the objective side of the base of practical reason is a view that shows there are some reasons not based in the subject’s view of anything. The objective view also has two possible sides. The first is agent-relative, an individual does what is best for herself/himself regardless of ideal situations. The second part is agent neutral, which is simply doing something because it is considered inherently right or good. The reason this view is ‘agent-neutral’ is that a person may act in this manner regardless of whether one wants or prefers to act in this manner. Baier’s moral philosophy is based upon self-anchored subjective views. In terms of LD debate, it may useful to do research on objective moral standards as a way to reply to Baier. These arguments can be found in Kantian as well neo-Kantian moral philosophers. According to Baier, although we have self-anchored subjective reasons, in compromising situations, we may all want some set of guidelines as overriding self-anchored reasons if these reasons are the best for all. (Russell) In these situations, everyone has reason to want some set of guidelines which supercede self-anchored reasons as long as those guidelines would further each person’s chance equally to live a choice-worthy life. So in this situation the general guidelines override the individual but ultimately the individual must choose whether compliance with those guidelines is productive. In his last major work, The Rational Moral Order, Baier explains, “[reason] is the best method because it consists in following certain general guidelines made available to us by our culture for the purpose of enabling us to guide ourselves in our attempts to find answers to such important questions.” (page 50) Ultimately for Baier, social guidelines are “ the closest attainable approximation” to the actual guidelines we should live our lives by. When there are available social guidelines it is prima facie rational to think that the available social guidelines are one’s best bet without any other contradicting reason. (The Rational Moral Order, p.268) MOTIVE Baier identifies something he calls “the Motivation Problem.” This is to highlight that moral philosophy has done an inadequate job of explaining why a person is motivated to act in accordance with a moral reason. According to conventional thinking, we can always do what we have reason to do because there is a reason to do this. Beyond being tautological, this explanting does not create a difference between motive and reason. We can be unmotivated in a certain moral direction even though we may recognize that it is the ‘right’ thing to do. For Baier if moral philosophy is going to resolve this issue, the discipline must account for two conditions. The first being that philosophers would have to bring to the fore of societal morals an objective procedure that can help reason conclusions about what we ought do. (The Rational Moral Order, p.51) Secondly, they would have to explain how we can be motivated to act in situations that our inclination is otherwise. One question that has been ever-present through Baier’s academic career is ‘What Shall I do?’ (The Moral Point of View) This question for Baier, at a deeper level of examination, is seeking a reply to, “What is the best course open to me, that is, the course supported by the best reasons?” For Baier, at least in this work, when we think of this question two different tasks arise. The first, which is a theoretical task of figuring out the best possible action. The second is a practical task of executing the theoretical conclusion. Baier is really focused on grappling with the question of the ‘motive power’ of reason, which is to say the ability to be motivated by a reason. Baier is adamant about explaining that just because we are aware of a reason does not mean we will necessarily act in accordance with that reason. The question that plaques Baier is about “the motive power of reason is…how [are we] able to accomplish the practical task of deliberation, even when our strongest desires oppose it [?]”(The Rational Moral Order, pg. 142) The answer to this question for Baier at least, lies within rationality. When we act in a rational manner we are acting within the conventions of Rationality. As Baier explains, “There is, then no mystery about why we act in accordance with the outcome of our [theory] deliberations, that is, in accordance with what we take to be the best reasons: it is because we want to follow the best reasons.” (page 142) Since there is really no question for Baier why we act in accordance with our reason, but questions why we even stop to reason in the first place. He argues that is a socially constructed and engrained phenomena. Baier explains that we have all been trained in ways to act in accordance with action that maybe in opposition to our impulses. Generally in Euro-American culture, people have been taught “not to follow impulses or instinct or inclination, but to think first…we have been trained to do it even in the face of strong contrary impulses”. (page 149) MORAL DELIBERATION In terms of moral deliberation, Baier suggests that we have two steps in deliberating morals. First is simply the identification of pros and cons of a moral choice and the second is the weighing of competing forces and options. Accordingly, we make our decisions within a moral rules of reason, such as, that killing may be wrong so that is a reason against killing. We weigh by using rules of superiority, which is just a fancy way of saying we prioritize choices. Baier want to highlight that what is conventionally referred to as moral convictions can “ function as moral rules of reason, as moral consideration-making beliefs.” (The Rational Moral Order, pg 171) Moral deliberation is a calculative process, a method of working through moral questions. As for the role of Moral philosophers, Baier suggests “all that can be expected …is the clarification of the calculus, the statement of general rules, and the methods of using them in particular calculations.”(172-173) This suggests that philosophers take a unique role in constructing a culture's methods of dealing with moral and ethical questions. It is not that philosophers are going to answer all of our problems, but rather provide us with a tool to guide us on our moral journeys. For Baier this also means that this calculative process of moral deliberation can be right or wrong. MORAL POINT OF VIEW Moral systems for Baier, must pass through a sort of test that can not be subjected on the law or a divine moral code. Initially in Baier's work he refers the moral point of view as that which a person of good will follows in deliberating a moral consideration. On way of resolving problems is by attempting to understand a situation from the multiple perspectives different people occupy. For Baier, the moral point of view overrides all of these views, it is how a ‘person of good will’ acts. As explained above, Baier thinks that morality is self-anchored in that it is not necessarily self-interested. As explained over forty years ago, “if the point of view of morality were that of self interest then there could never be moral solutions of conflicts of interest.” (The Rational Moral Order, pg 190-91) For Baier, the moral point of view goes beyond self-interest and is based upon principles. The contemporary text Baier applies is “a moral guideline is true if and only if it would be more to everyone’s advantage that people generally comply with it than that people generally not comply with it.”( Schneewind, pg 187) So again, Baier’s moral philosophy is focused around the individuals' ability to reason and that that process is not just self centered. Furthermore, Baier explains that the three criteria for determining whether a certain behavior should be morally prohibited by a certain group depends on: “(i) the consequences would be undesirable if everyone did it, (ii) all are equally entitled to engage in it, and (iii) engaging in this sort of behavior is an indulgence, not a sacrifice. Morality is a societal system that adheres with these aforementioned criteria. A constant issue in moral philosophy arise here in terms of others willingness to reciprocate within a moral system. For Baier, it is rational for everyone to want to reciprocate. This happens only when one has reason to believe that others are likely to reciprocate. (The Rational Moral Order, p.179) This feeling of reciprocation is what Baier refers to as Limited Conditional Good Will. In order for an individual to espouse this limited good will, a person must be reasonably assured that others will cooperate. Baier vaguely refers to societal guidelines as the ways in which people can be assured of matter of a fact that others will reciprocate, otherwise it would be irrational for one to choose to engage in an activity that would not be reciprocated. These systems, according to Baier, must be acted upon by everyone in a culture. He writes, “Moral Principals are not merely principles on which individuals must act without making exceptions, but they are principles meant for everybody " (The Moral Point of View, pg. 179) From this logic, Baier follows by arguing that these principals must be taught openly and universally. In a moral system, “Morality is meant to be taught to all members of the group in such a way that everyone can and ought always act in accordance with these rules”. (pg 179) This point is important within the history of European moral philosophy and theology, because it does not limit the morality to simply a virtue within only a small elite group but has the possibility of being a holistic societal system. In Baier’s early work, he follows this line of argument by criticizing certain cultural systems that privilege only part of the population. He argues that in some societies ‘morality’ is really only a premature cluster of rules and laws that privilege ruling elites. (pg. 200-201) He is using this as a historical example, a locus point of discussion between historical legal systems. This part of his writing can be appropriated for argument construction within a LD round. One way is to criticize current moral systems as mere simulations and extensions of contemporary legal systems which are reliant upon a heavy currency of societal oppression. This clearly also indicates Baier’s view on the ‘nature’ of people. He denies that all people are moral by nature. One way of arguing this point for Baier is to claim that animals and robots are not moral and would be if there was a morality by nature. He also argued that if acted morally without deliberation, people themselves would be robotic like in the sense that an individual would automatically do was considered morally reasonable. “Morality is our second rather than our first nature.” (pg. 257) Rather for Baier, the process moral deliberation is how one acts morally. WHY SHOULD WE BE MORAL? According to Baier, “we should be moral because being moral is following rules designed to overrule self-interest whenever it is in the interest of everyone alike that everyone should set aside his interest.”(pg. 314) This means that the best possible life for everyone requires sacrifice, that it is not just self-interested reasons. Moral reasons are superior to individual interests. Moral systems are supposed to override self-interest when it is disadvantageous to other people he argues that is the raison d’ etre of a morality. It is in this section that Baier briefly lays out some of these universal rules. (pg 309) These include: “Thou shall not kill’, ‘Thou shall not lie’, ‘Though shall not steal’. He also includes discussion of cruelty, torture, cheating, and rape. In order to examine the complications of rules we should consider the following example from Baier. Would be morally wrong for me to kill my grandfather so that he will be unable to change his will and disinherit me? “Assuming that my killing him will be in my best interest but detrimental to my grandfather, while refraining from killing him will be to my detriment but in my grandfather’s interest, then if ethical conflict-regulation is sound, there can be a sound moral guideline regulating this conflict (presumably by forbidding this killing)” (page 202). Many authors have taken up this very example of inheritance, and oppose Baier’s simplified way of dealing with the complications of self-interest. The added bibliography will suggest an article that deals with this issue. DEBATE POSSIBILITIES I have already begun to briefly drop notes on how Baier may be helpful in debate rounds. This section will attempt to deal with some of the different sides to arguing a particular author’s moral point of view. It is important first to recognize that Kurt Baier has been publishing work since at least 1958. This means that deploying his arguments requires extra attention. First, though he has been writing for so long he is still one author, which means he literally has not kept up with all of his major critics over the decades. Simply put, you do not want to deploy an argument that your author may have lost already in the literature base or maybe at least you want to be aware of some of the holes that you can plug in terms of academic debate. Another issue that arises is because Baier has been writing for so long, he has taken different positions and viewpoints at different times in his career. This presumably means that there are points of conflict within his own philosophy that are seen by some as failures of his and seen by others as his willingness to adapt to the times. With those important concerns mentioned, let us now move to the specifics of how his moral arguments can be appropriated and or successfully executed. One of the easiest ways to deploy his criticism is against authors Baier directly criticizes. Though his early work appropriates Kant, he ultimately disagrees with Kantian and neo-Kantian reliance on categorical imperatives. His argument is mainly that Kant does not account well for the motivation to action, instead his theory presumes motivation inherent in rational maxims. The criticism implies that we are just robotic beings who have no real ability to reflect, feel, reason and move towards a particular direction on one’s accord. This is a disheartening view of humanity that possibly justifies corrupt moral systems that are not based upon caring or at least non self-centered individuals but rather on the ability of some to construct systems that privilege a particular group, or identity inequitably. Further, debater’s basic claims of morals and their accompanying value structures can be undermined if they are premised upon either a supernatural deity or solely in self-interest. Values that cannot be tested according to society-anchored moral reasons are most likely unsound morals that do not help people live life’s that are fruitful for themselves or others. Though many debaters will not accredit the values they advocate to a supernatural force there are still ways to win links. One way is to be able to verbally question the reasons and motives behind certain espoused values. Baier’s test is simply if it a more beneficial for a group do something than to not. On closer examination of many conventional values such as individual liberty can be masks for inequity of all sorts within our culture. Debaters could advocate a moral-value based upon Baier’s standards. The reason this could be helpful is that Baier provides some generic tests or criteria for these values, discussed above. To reiterate, Baier identifies moral reasons as self-anchored and society anchored. This means that individuals must choose to comply with a given societal moral system, but do not necessarily act in accordance with self-interest. One can argue that instead something like an individual liberty one should be grounded in a self-anchored system in which individuals rationally choose to act in accordance with moral reasons that will bring good onto others, even at times when it causes the individual grief. In debates, deploying narratives that affirm this sort of ethic may be a powerful way of explaining a powerful concept. Though Baier’s work has its problems, his explanation of self-anchored reasons goes far beyond the norm of self-interested moral philosophers. It allows the space to recognize that even though we may not be moral naturally all the time, we can as people begin to create a moral system which adapts to the different needs of growing and diverse societies. My last suggestion differs drastically from all the aforementioned but still may be worth considering on its own terms. It is important first to recognize that questions of nihilism are often suppressed within academic settings but sometimes debate may allow the space to discuss the process of an enduring nihilism. Though the term nihilism can be intended in different manners, I use it here simply to refer to the essential Nietzschean concept, in which values continually devalue themselves. In this nihilistic setting no value or moral is choice worthy, it is a dreadful and horrible endeavor that many feel is necessary to travel in order to ‘overcome’ the dualistic European value structure. Though discussion of nihilism can be complex, I suggest that it is possible to apply Baier to a situation of Nietzchean nihilism. In order to argue this point one must note that nihilism arises as a result of the death of ‘God’. (God both as a being, and as a metaphor for the morals and values that are tied to God.) Some have said in a state of nihilism all is permitted, but the point for some authors is to overcome nihilism in a possible inventing of something out of nothing. Though Baier’s work is possibly undermined from the standpoint of a nihilistic perspective, there is room to maneuver Baier’s ideas, meaning that you could add your own ideas to those of Baier. At a basic level one must use Baier’s idea of a moral system not based upon a God. And since Baier identifies moral systems as relatively fluid societal structures, one could argue that a new formulated society structure could create a moral and value structure out of a state of nothingness. CONCLUSION Kurt Baier is a moral philosopher who has created work that has spanned a long period within the disciplines that analyze moral philosophy. It is important to note that his work has even contributed to the fractioning of the original disciplines that analyzed questions of morality. We must not forget that most European philosophers have historically based morality within the confines of Religion. The point here is not to argue that Religious systems are immoral but rather to highlight how questions of morality have almost always been limited to theology. Baier is crucial in that he fundamentally denies the need for a religious deity or God in the process of developing a sound moral system. Baier has filled this vacuum through the actions of the individuals. He argues throughout his various works that moral reasons are self-anchored in that they executed through the individual but are not always in favor of the individual. The moral point of view is one that is founded upon this principal, but this self-anchored principal is always superceded by societal-anchored reasons. For Baier, sound moral systems that are preexisting to an individual's participation in that culture are prime facie rational, and should be followed. It is also important to note that reasons that appear to an individual do not inherently motivate a person to act in a way that would attain the reason in consideration. Baier answers the question of motivation by arguing that we act in accordance to principals that are based upon the best reasons. This also implies that our moral choices have the possibility of being true or false. Baier presents a simple test for the validity of a Moral claim. Baier argues “ a moral guideline is true if and only if it would be more to everyone’s advantage that people generally comply with it than that people generally not comply with it.” In this process of trying to figure out which morals to adhere to individuals must asses the theorized reasons for acting and second must enact the reason the was chosen in the process of deliberation. For Baier, moral philosophers have a unique role in clarifying the calculus that is used by individuals to deem something morally rational, but the act of performing the moral is always constrained to individuals and their own experience. In this respect, we conclude by appreciating what we can of Baier’s suggestions for ourselves. Each of us can appreciate his contributions to the history of moral philosophy as well as his possible contributions to our individual experience. He has articulated that we must construct societal systems that are not based upon exploitation but upon principals that allow others not only to be considered, but prioritized. This prioritization of the other over the self stands in contrast to most of European philosophy much like the general position of Kurt Baier and his moral point of view.
Directory: uploads uploads -> 587 Return function, r i(X) r i(0) r i(1) r i(2) r i(3) 1 0 2 4 6 Thermal Station, I 2 0 1 5 6 3 0 3 5 6 10 uploads -> Department of science and humanities department of mathematics part-a questions and answers uploads -> The Case Against the nypd’s Quota-Driven ‘Broken Windows’ Policing What Is It? uploads -> For want of a nail uploads -> Ownership Models There are two different types of ownership models uploads -> Police Militarization uploads -> City of rising star regular meting thursday, july 14, 2016 uploads -> Township of winfield uploads -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014 uploads -> The Black Panther Party’s Ten-Point Program What We Want Now! Download 5.81 Mb. Share with your friends:
|