Celebrating Crowds

THE ORGANIC and ATOMISTIC VIEWS OF SOCIETY

Montrealman has read the previous comments regarding the shooting of Osama bin Laden and reflected on the “disparities” of opinion – well, maybe not so much – on the news of his death. While most celebrated his shooting, a few were not so jubiliant and not just because of the threat of terrorist blow-back. Suprisingly, the poster himself wrote “They were celebrating the death of another human being. Why, they were behaving just like the enemy.” (What Fools Ye Mortals Be.”) These were elevated thoughts indeed from a poster, a breed not usually known for the depth of their philosophical reflection. The question, of course, is why there was at least a minmal disparity of opinion in the first place?

It all goes back to philosophy – what doesn’t since it is co-extensive with life itself – and in particular the conflicting views of what constitutes the nature of society.

Broadly speaking, such views fall into two camps, the “organic” and the “atomistic.” The organic view sees society in the shape of a tree – a trunk of common beliefs and practices – together with branches indicating variations off the common core. For the “organicist,” diseased branches must be cut away to prevent contamination of the trunk. It is called social “pruning.” In other words, the organicist is in favour, among other things, of capital punishment for “appropriate crimes” – however defined – in order that the tree, society itself, may continue to flourish. For the organicist, Bin Laden’s shooting was perfectly acceptable and even laudable.

On the other hand there is the “atomist,” one who views society as a collection of individuals. As individuals, their rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are inviolable. By definition, there can be no capital punishmment for whatever reason and, of course, the shooting of Bin Laden was consequently unacceptable. His capture might have been, but not his execution.

The question comes down to one’s basic philosophical beliefs. Do your “riverbed beliefs” include the inviolability of human life regardless of the circumstances? Then you are. like the poster, an atomist. Your path is clear.

If, however, your riverbed beliefs are “diverted” according to the circumstances of the case, then your path is also clear. You are an organicist. You will rejoice over Bin Laden’s death.

Philosophy, of course, can take you only so far but, to be a rational being, you must know WHY you hold the riverbed beliefs that you do.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

“SOMETIMES”

“We kind of have to sink to the enemy’s level sometimes.” (Tommyjules, May 3, 8:00PM)

As soon as Montrealman read the first line of Tommy’s opening sentence and saw the word “sometimes” he knew where Tommy was headed. Tommy was going down the road called “moral relativism” (or “situational ethics”) which, unfortunately, vitiates all principled moral discourse. That “sometimes” opens a Pandora’s box, one which will never be closed.

Is it permissible to bear false witness? Well, sometimes. Is it permissible to be an adulterer? Yes, sometimes. Is it permissible to lie, cheat and steal? Yup, sometimes. Is it permissible to kill? Yeah, sure, sometimes. The difficulty, however, with moral relativism is that the principles on which morality rests are so darned finnicky: Either they legislate for all moral actions or they legislate for none. There is no such a thing as half a moral principle.

If the moral relativist claims that he can “draw the line” between those moral actions which are permissible and those which are not, what yardstick is he to use? There cannot be any principles which serve as the baseline to measure off the permissible from the impermissible. There is just nothing there. So the moral relativist necessarily falls back upon vengeance, retribution, and their cognates. Of course, this is a two-edged sword, one which might with equal “justice” be appealed to by, say, al Harawhi and his jihadists. And so the downward spiral continues. With the collapse of principled moral discourse all bets are off, it’s a free-for-all and may the devil take the hindmost.

Montrealman is not interested in “winning” any debate with Tommy on this point since, of course, there can be no winner. All Montrealman wants is to shine a philosophical light on the issue. He wants people to know why they want what they want and to realize the consequences of their choices.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

THE “EXERCISE”

“It is an exercise for you because your goal is to act as our ‘teacher’, and make us ‘think.'”
(Wheeliep, 8:00PM)

Wheeliep explains his contrast between a “debate” in which people learn from each other and in which he maintains I should properly be engaged on this site, as opposed to an “exercise”
in which my goal is to act as his “teacher” and to make him “think.” (Note the scare quotes around the terms “teacher” and “think” – juicy concepts which tempt Montrealman to engage but which for the time being he will forego.) But his concept of an “exercise” is thought-provoking. In particular, it raises the question as to what I actually am doing on this site.

First a little philosophy. Someone once said that a human being comes into existence when he utters his first words. Before that he is a human being only potentially. His first words indicate the first reflective workings of his mind, even if they are restricted to recording simple sense perceptions. As he matures his words turn into sentences which record not just percepts but his attempts to formulate concepts, those inter-related thoughts by which he struggles to make sense of the world. Finally, he may (or, sadly, may not) begin to write, to formally set down his views together the reasons he holds them. He has become fully human. But how does this relate to what I am doing on this site?

It might appear to Wheeliep that I come on like a teacher and to make the bitchers think but this is not the case, at least not entirely. What I am actually doing is conducting a soliloquy – in effect talking to myself in order to clarify exactly what it is I happen to think about any given topic, assuming it has a minimum of reflective depth. ( For example, I steer clear of parking bitches and the like.) It is my attempt to make sense of the world, to follow Socrates’ advice to examine my life. In effect, I am acting as my own “teacher,” attempting to make myself “think.”

Of course, this does not preclude my engaging in “debates” in which, according to Wheeliep, the debaters join in a “conversation” and learn from each other. But debates are more than simple conversations. At least for me, they aim at “truth” or whatever that amounts to in any given topic. They have a purpose. Debaters have positions supported by reasons, and it is upon the cogency of those reasons that the validity of their respective positions rests.

So what I am doing on this site is part soliloquy and part debate. Add in a little “Montrealman humour” – which largely consists of a tongue-in-cheek reference to my learned avatar, “Montrealman,” – and there you have it.

I better stop now or Dim Bro Tim will just scroll me away.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

Guyote (May 7, 9:10AM) – You stand as your own refutation.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

?

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!