Thursday, November 17, 2011

Metaphysics: The Case For Intrinsic Value


Are there intrinsic values in nature? If so, what are they?

Nature must be treated as though it has intrinsic value even if this metaphysical property cannot be proven to exist. This essay shows that while objective intrinsic value is likely to exist, it is important that nature is treated as though it has intrinsic value. Deep Ecology is a key concern of this essay. Deep Ecology suggests that there is intrinsic value in all of nature and that there are strong ontological reasons for accepting this. Three philosophical problems with the concept of intrinsic value will considered in this essay: origins, limits, and priorities. This paper shows how many of the reasons why intrinsic value is not accepted are either misguided or are inapplicable to Deep Ecology.

There are several different ways that one can value nature. Nature can, and often is, valued for the economic gain it brings about. It can also be valued purely as a resource for human or animal existence. One of the problems with valuing nature in this way is that it is difficult to stipulate why economic gain or resource value should be viewed as a greater end than nature in itself. While human existence may be seen as a greater end, one should not automatically assume that it is then the only end worth pursuing.

Objective metaphysical properties are also problematic in philosophy. However, the dilemma of being unable to prove intrinsic value does not instantly mean that intrinsic value does not exist. It is clear that if nature is treated purely as a means and never as an end, it will be subject to a lesser degree of concern. Environmental thinkers such as Arne Naess have explored this idea which will need to be considered if we are to reflect critically on how we view the environment.

Empirical studies have shown that many people value nature intrinsically, however, it is often hard to explain why this is the case. This means that nature is valuable regardless of its ‘usefulness’ (Butler and Acott 2007, p. 166). Translating this empirical ‘feeling’ into philosophical reasoning is very difficult, as proving objective metaphysical properties is problematic in philosophy. Who has authority to proclaim that property A is an objective value if another person disagrees? This thinking can lead to the idea that there are no objective metaphysical properties – but this is a mistaken observation. If a property cannot be determined then it does not follow that the property in question does not exist.

If humans can treat nature as though it has intrinsic value then it is worth assessing whether nature actually possesses this property. In addition to this it is clear that if nature is treated purely as a means and never as an end (valued intrinsically), it will be subject to a lesser degree of concern. Therefore, it is important to assess whether nature has intrinsic value. Three problems associated with valuing nature intrinsically will be the primary concern of this paper: origins, limits, and priorities.

  1. Origins
Objective metaphysical properties, just like a deity, cannot be proven in a syllogistic manner. One may simply assume that because these properties cannot have a proven existence it then follows that they do not exist. However, both non-existence and existence are problematic. In the same way, objective intrinsic and non-intrinsic value cannot be proven syllogistically. However, it is possible to show through concepts such as Naess’ ‘Deep Ecology’, that intrinsic value provides a more coherent perception of the world.

The problem of origin is visible in both objective and subjective metaphysics. The former is arguably more important and problematic while the latter is less important and less problematic. Subjective intrinsic value is philosophically sound but less valuable. If I believe that I have a million dollars in my bank account, yet I actually do not have this money, it will not matter whether I actually have the money (providing that I never go to use it). Whether I have the money or whether I don’t have the money, this does not matter. If I believe I have the money and act as if I have the money, until I discover that I in fact do not have the money, it would not matter.

In the same way, if I am to believe that the environment has intrinsic value when in hypothetically it does not, it would not matter so much that I was acting on false beliefs. I would go about treating the environment as though it has intrinsic value, and therefore I would probably treat it with higher regard. However, objectivity is important if others around me do not ascribe intrinsic value to the environment. While I may believe that I have one hundred dollars in my pocket, my neighbor may have no good reason to believe this to be the case until he sees the money. How will I convince him that the money exists? Reasons such as ‘because I believe it has intrinsic value’ is a subjective one, and my neighbor has no reason to adhere to it. Alternatively one could argue that the environment will be treated better if we ascribe intrinsic value to it. While this is probably true, this does not prove the existence of the objective intrinsic value of nature. According to this argument, it is something that we would merely want to be true because of its good consequences.

Naess does not attempt to prove ‘Deep Ecology’ but instead he reveals a different system of thought. His thoughts on the intrinsic value of nature give an alternative passage of thinking which avoids the brick wall of the burden of proof. In particular, his concept of Self-realisation and the transformation from the self to the Self (capital ‘S’) is of utmost importance. Naess suggests that self-interest undermines our ontological value. He believes that we find true value not in the self (individuality), but in the Self (universality) (Næss and Rothenberg 1989, pp. 84-86).

Core to self-realisation for Naess and other Deep Ecologists is the concept that all life is fundamentally one. This is in concordance with Naess’ influences of Gandhian and Buddhist philosophies. Martin Luther King Jr. also took a similar view of the Self (arguably more anthropocentric, but still heavily influenced by the philosophy of Gandhi) stating that ‘injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere’ (McGraw 2003, p. 113). King believes that an injustice that is happening to someone other than myself will actually harm me as well. In the same way, Naess believes that we a part of a larger Self where all injustices against nature strip humans of meaning as well. Self-realisation is an ontological and ecological philosophy that Naess would describe as an ‘ecosophy’. The concept of an ecosophy is unlike other philosophical ideas in that it is neither strict nor vague. It is not strict in the sense that it will vary from person to person, according to their place in the world, and it is not vague in the sense that it is precise for each individual. An ecosophy should be seen as a wider collection of ideas and thinking rather than a narrow concept. This ontological argument provides strong evidence as to how the question of the origin of intrinsic values in nature can be answered by Deep Ecology.

  1. Limits
If intrinsic value is to be placed in all of nature, as Naess suggests, there must be some degree of limitation. Jonge, in his writings on Spinoza and Deep Ecology, questions how we must treat a mosquito that is carrying malaria if we are to remain consistent with Deep Ecology thinking. The anopheles genus is responsible for the deaths of 1.4 to 2.6 million African children. If we are to value all of nature as holding equal intrinsic value then it would not be ethical to perform experiments on the mosquito (De Jonge 2004, p. 20.). This poses a significant problem for environmental ethicists who claim that all life forms have intrinsic value. One solution to this is to ascribe different levels of intrinsic value according to particular characteristics of groups of life forms. This provokes two further problems: the problem of the justification of collective characteristics trumping individual characteristics, and the inevitable problem of anthropocentricism. The former will be addressed now, and the latter will be addressed in the next section.
It is illogical to state that each individual member of a species has a different level of intrinsic value. This is not possible because it goes against the very meaning of intrinsic value. For example, imagine two humans. The first is fit and healthy, and she has a very high productive capacity. The second suffers from a chronic illness and has a lower productive capacity. To assess these two people instrumentally it would be clear that the first person has higher value. The same cannot be said to be true in regard to intrinsic value. The intrinsic value of both people remain the same regardless of their instrumental worth. This is why it is logical to apply intrinsic value to collectives rather than individuals, otherwise intrinsic value will become synonymous with instrumental value and the distinctions will be worthless. As Jong (2004, p. 20.) suggests, ‘it is possible that all beings have intrinsic value, viz., a life of their own, and still regard human beings as more valuable and therefore superior to the non-human world.’

  1. Priorities
If there is to be some kind of hierarchical application of intrinsic value as suggested by the discussion on the limits of intrinsic value above, then there must be justified prioritization of value between species. Ascribing less intrinsic value to the anopheles genus and more intrinsic value to higher non-human animals and human beings can be reconciled with Deep Ecology. Such prioritization of value will inevitably cause some degree of anthropocentricism. Anthropocentricism is often perceived to be a dirty word in environmental and animal rights discourse. However, this should not be the case for when it is applied to Deep Ecology theories. An anthropocentric hierarchical approach to environmental ethics, where all species have varying degrees of intrinsic value, is the most effective and rational way to protect both the human and non-human beings. This will be referred to as the species based approach.

A common objection to the species based approach is that moral obligations could be fulfilled by ensuring that a diverse range of species are raised in zoos (Pojman and Pojman 2011, p. 191.). Russow uses this example to show that ascribing intrinsic value to species leads to intuitively bad outcomes. However, this is cannot apply to Deep Ecology understandings of value. A Deep Ecologist does not value a synthetic nature. A constructed landscape can never have the same worth as a natural landscape to the Deep Ecologist. Zoos are not natural and do not preserve the integrity and flourishing on the species in question.

A further four of Russow’s case studies suggest that if one were to accept a species based account, it would then follow that there are moral obligations to preserve species whom are dying out, evolving, and those who have been domesticated (Pojman and Pojman 2011, p. 192.). It seems that an acceptable solution to Russow’s concern, at least to those species who are dying out or evolving, would be to weigh up human interference with the specie in question against a natural equilibrium. In practice, this would involve assessing the extent of interference the specie has been victim to by humans or other species introduced by humans to the specie’s natural habitat. If interference has taken place then it follows that there is a restorative duty. However, if interference has not taken place, and it appears that nature is simply ‘taking its course’, then it follows that no moral obligations are due. There is and ought be moral obligations derived from valuing nature intrinsically, however, Russow is mistaken in her criticism of the excessive burden and unintuitive obligations that she believes must follow on from valuing nature intrinsically.

A hierarchy of intrinsic value will inevitably be anthropocentric. As mentioned above, one should not make the assumption that because humans have higher intrinsic value than the anopheles genus this means the non-human world can continue to be exploited. For Deep Ecology, this is far from true. Understanding and responding to the intrinsic value of nature leads to the best treatment of not only humans, not only animals, but the entirety of nature.  

Consider the contrast between valuing nature intrinsically and instrumentally. If one is to value nature instrumentally as opposed to intrinsically it follows that it is morally acceptable to use nature as a mere means rather than as an end in and of itself. Naess (1989, p. 11.) draws an analogy between how we ought to treat our friends and how we ought to treat nature. He suggests that ‘like friends – we should never use them only as a means to something else. To do so is superficial, seeing only surface interactions.’ He suggests that ‘we tend to lose friends’ if we treat them only as means and never as ends. Naess (1989, pp. 11-12.) concludes that ‘the same could happen with nature’.

It is clear that the best way to treat nature, both for the sake of nature and for our own sakes, is to treat it as though it has intrinsic worth. This essay has shown that there is a stalemate between whether it is possible for intrinsic value to be subjective or objective. However, it has also shown that what is crucial is not whether I am applying intrinsic value to nature subjectively or whether this objective metaphysical property exists, but rather that nature must be treated as though it has intrinsic value. Applying intrinsic value to nature allows us to explore the meaning of our own lives in the context of a wider Self.


Bibliography


Monday, November 7, 2011

Hollow be thy name.


Our Father, which art in heaven,

Hollow be thy name.

Thy Kingdom leave.

My will be done in heaven,

As it is on earth.

Grant us our oppressed,

As we oppress those who seek refuge among us.

And lead us not into humility,

But deliver us from fraternity.

For mine is the kingdom,

The power, and the glory,

Forever and ever.

Amen.


Who is the centre of your belief?

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Welcome To Australia Community Forum





Featuring Jessie Taylor, Dr Gordon Preece, and Etervina Groenen.

Facebook RSVP

Asylum seeker issues are currently attracting a lot of attention in our media. The terms 'boat people', 'illegals', and 'queue-jumpers' are thrown around frequently. But who are these people? Where do they come from? Why are they leaving?

At the 'Welcome To Australia' community forum we will explore the moral and political issues surrounding the treatment of asylum seekers in Australia. You will get to express your views and ask questions of the panel (Tony Jones style, hopefully!). You can ask questions on the night, or you can submit them early on twitter with the hash tag #w2a.

This is a community forum which is open to all, whether you have been in Australia for 8 months or 80 years.

Speakers and Panellists:

:: Jessie Taylor
Jessie Taylor is a prominent lawyer and refugee rights activist. She is a member of The Justice Project board and is mentored by fellow board member Julian Burnside QC.

:: Dr. Gordon Preece
Dr Preece is the Director of Ethos and was the former Director of the Centre for Applied Christian Ethics (CACE) at Ridley

:: Etervina Groenen
Etervina is a refugee from East Timor who is now giving back and helping other refugees that come to Australia.


Time
19 November · 19:30 - 21:30

Location
2 Lum Road, Wheelers Hill, Victoria, 3150






Monday, October 10, 2011

Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement

Martin Luther King meets Malcolm X



Martin Luther King, Jr. was one of the most influential figures in the American civil rights movement. King took a principled approach to his leadership rather than a populist approach. While the movement gave King the opportunity to lead, his leadership style differed greatly from other public leaders of his time. He developed many unpopular public positions including denouncing the Vietnam War and proposing non-violent solutions to various problems in society. King had more enemies and was more controversial than the history books often portray. One of King’s close friend’s believes that ‘those on the right breathe deeply and polish King’s rough edges into a more acceptable and harmless national icon.’[1] This essay explores the difficult and unpopular decisions that King made in order to be philosophically consistent in his leadership. Rather than appeasing the demos, King sought to express his deep conviction about poverty, justice, and racism.

King began his leadership of the Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA) reluctantly. He had previously refused leadership roles in the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured Peoples (NAACP) citing family and church obligations. In response to the offer of leadership within the MIA, he surprised his colleagues and said, ‘well, if you think I can render some service I will.’[2]  At this stage of his career King had only recently received his PhD in systematic theology, and he had passed up academic jobs to pursue this vocation. King wrote that he was ‘possessed by fear’ that he would not be able to carry it off and was ‘obsessed by a feeling of inadequacy.’[3] Even at this early stage of his career it is noticeable from records of King’s sermons at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church that he did in fact have a strong conscience and articulate expression, priming him for leadership in this area of moral and social change. King, before he received work at Dexter Avenue Baptist, courageously told the congregation at a ‘trial’ sermon that ‘no man should become so involved in his personal ambitions that he forgets that other people exist in the world.’[4]

However acute his moral conscience was, King was by no means responsible for initiating the American civil rights movement. King was effectively thrown into the position of presidency of the MIA as a communal response to the arrest of Mrs Rosa Parks who was charged with ‘refusing to obey orders bus drivers [sic].’[5] She was ordered to give up her seat for a white person yet she refused. King led a mass boycott of the Montgomery bus services in response to the protest of civil disobedience by Rosa Parks.[6] Soon after, King was chosen to be president of the MIA, he fully realised his vocation - standing up for justice, truth, and righteousness.[7] King’s passion and drive for the cause of civil rights in America was unwavering from this point onwards (January 27, 1956, to be precise). Three days later his house was bombed yet still his passion did not subside. To the large crowd of ‘angry black citizens’ King said ‘I want you to love our enemies. Be good to them. Love them and let them know you love them.’[8]

King was able to personify and embody, in this moment, the philosophy and theology that inspired him and the movement which he led. Through his courageous leadership in Montgomery, King proved that he lead on principle rather than popularity, which explains why he later refused to go into public office. The non-violence that King preached would now be responsible for shaping a movement and avoiding a civil war. King decided to wage the war on racism and segregation on moral grounds through non-violent means. King’s moral convictions led him to state: ‘frankly, I am for immediate integration. Segregation is evil, and I cannot, as a minister, condone evil.’[9] This utterance was in a similar vein to another American revolutionary, William Lloyd Garrison, who in 1831 decided that ‘it was immoral to favour the continuance for an hour of a system which is morally wrong’ and therefore did not support the gradual improvement to an evil system.[10] Anything else would be a compromise.

Malcolm X’s leadership of the black Muslims has proved to be one of the most interesting points of comparison to King’s leadership role in the movement. Although both leaders sought similar ends, they attempted to achieve those ends through means which were diametrical opposed.[11] Malcolm X sought unification on the understanding that black Americans have a common enemy – white men. He told his followers to ‘put the white man out of our meetings, number one’, so that blacks could present a unified front. Malcolm X, in a television interview described King as ‘the best weapon that white man, who wants to brutalize negroes, has ever gotten [sic] in this country, because he is setting up a situation where, when white man wants to attack Negroes, they can’t defend themselves.’[12] In a telegram to King, Malcolm X offered armed troops to aid his struggle in attempt to sway King from his commitment to non-violence. The telegram concluded: ‘the day of turning the other cheek to those brutes is over.’[13] This drew the key philosophical distinction between the two leaders of the civil rights movement.

In Message To Grassroots Malcolm X questioned: ‘How can you justify being nonviolent in Mississippi and Alabama, when your churches are being bombed, and your little girls are being murdered, and at the same time you’re going to [sic] violent with Hitler, and Tojo, and somebody else that you don’t even know?’ Malcolm X used the international analogy to point out the inconsistency of King’s position.[14] He had ran out of patience for King’s nonviolent direct action. Malcolm X summed up: ‘if violence is wrong in America, violence is wrong abroad’.[15] In saying this, Malcolm X used international violence to justify domestic violence. King would later speak out against the war in Vietnam and use domestic nonviolence to justify international nonviolence.

King disagreed with the means that Malcolm X sought to utilise to achieve higher status of black Americans. King believed that the value of an action should be found in the action itself, not in the outcome, writing that ‘immoral means cannot bring about moral ends’.[16] King describes non-violent resistance as ‘the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom and human dignity’, arguing that it ‘weakens his morale’ and ‘works on his conscience.’[17] For King, non-violence was the appropriate moral means to achieve the sought-after end. This philosophical belief was deeply inspired by King’s strong religious convictions and also by his visit to India. In India, King learnt about the movement which Gandhi led. After this visit King was even more confident that the struggle could only be won through non-violent means. One of King’s friends goes so far as to say that ‘Gandhi and Dr King were cut from the same cloth, long-lost brothers from different mothers.’[18] The means that King employed to pursue his passion are crucial for understanding him as a leader of the civil rights movement. King’s principles almost always trumped his desire for the best outcome or any desire for popularity. This is what separated King from many other leaders at the time.

King received two layers of criticism because of his strong convictions. Heated criticism was received within his own ranks as well as from outside observers, particularly the media. Within his own ranks, many activists working with King did not share his strong convictions of nonviolence, or they did so arbitrarily. Andrew Young, a friend and supporter of King only implemented nonviolence ‘because it was a practical solution’ and because ‘machine gunning down someone at a lunch counter or in a bus wouldn’t have been good public relations.’[19] The strongest of criticisms, however, only came to surface once King had spoken out against America’s role in Vietnam. Young, and some of King’s other friends were against King taking a public stance on Vietnam because it ‘would confuse the issue of civil rights with a non-relevant international military dispute.’[20] King, however, decided to follow his conscience and publically state that the Vietnam War was a ‘blasphemy against all that America stands for.’[21] King provoked a strong reaction from the media with one Washington Post reporter alleging that King’s speech against America’s role in Vietnam ‘was filled with bitter and damaging allegations and inferences that he did not and could not document’. The reporter went on to suggest that ‘many who have listened to him with respect will never again accord him the same confidence. He has diminished his usefulness to his cause, to his country and to his people.’[22] Others suggested that King should ‘stick to his own knitting’, and that he was ‘pandering to Ho Chi Minh.’[23]

King’s public stance on Vietnam proves an element of consistency in his views. It is clear that King spoke out against the war because of his deep conviction. He believed that this was the right thing to do, regardless of whether it would have a negative impact on the civil rights movement which he worked tirelessly to build. Even before he consulted others in the movement, Clark, a close friend of King felt ‘it was clear that Martin had already made his own decision to state publically … his anti-Vietnam war position.’[24] This is yet another example of King’s conscience driven leadership. King was often encouraged by his peers to enter politics, but he felt that elected officials ‘had to represent the majority’, whereas King ‘wanted to be a voice for the voiceless.’[25] King did not have a desire to represent the views of others, but to lead in a way that would ensure that the oppressed are listened to. When King spoke out against Vietnam, the Washington Post reported that ‘73% of American people disagree with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in his denunciations of the war in Vietnam and 60 per cent believe his position will hurt the civil rights movement.’[26] Reverend Tim Costello, the CEO of World Vision Australia, who was inspired by King, believes that unpopular decisions in leadership are some of the most important. For the same reasons as King, Costello also decided not to enter public office on a federal level citing that he would have to follow the people if he is their democratically elected leader. Like King, Costello prefers the role of the prophet, suggesting that the ‘prophet is one who is prepared to go against where the people are going, even in the opposite direction because it’s right.’[27] King’s principled approach to morality provoked strong criticism, even to being labelled a ‘sell out’ by Malcolm X.[28] This criticism did nothing to weaken King’s convictions.

When considering whether the movement made King, or whether King made the movement, it is important to note that King did not happen to be a minister of the gospels by sheer chance. King’s father, grand-father, great grand-father and father’s brother were all pastors.[29] It almost seems as though King was destined for his role in the church. However, as a person representing an economically and socially marginalised group of society, King would have needed a great deal of persistence and motivation to achieve in the way he did.

As King’s profile increased to celebrity status, attempts to assassinate his character also augmented greatly. Not only was criticism directed at King from the media, but now it was also being sent from government organisations. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover described King as ‘the most notorious liar in the country’, in attempt to destroy his platform.[30] The joint smear campaign by the FBI and the media was unable to crush King’s spirit. Until the day King was assassinated he spoke out against the evils which confronted him.

It is clear that King went well above what was expected from him in his role as a pastor. While he was a ‘good candidate’ for a leadership role in the American civil rights movement, he did not gain his status through sheer luck. Years of study, dissatisfaction with the status quo, and strong stances on public moral issues meant that King was well placed to lead the movement he propelled. While external environmental factors such as the movement itself were important parts of King’s leadership, it is clear that he embodied many great leadership qualities in and of himself. The distinction between the philosophies of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King which have been explored in this paper have shown how Malcolm X followed the mood of disenfranchised black Muslims in America while King took unpopular decisions in accordance with his conscience which turned him into a leader. All leaders have a relationship with those they lead, however, only few leaders have the ability to make difficult and unpopular decisions in order to act morally. King was one of few leaders who led like an unwelcome prophet.
                                                                                    

Bibliography




[1] De Leon, Leaders from the 1960s : a biographical sourcebook of American activism, Westport, Conn., 1994, p. 123.
[2] Albert and Hoffman, We shall overcome : Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Black freedom struggle, New York, 1993, pp. 14-15.
[3] Ibid., p. 15.
[4] Martin Luther King, The Dimensions of a Complete Life, Montgomery, 1954.
[5] Albert and Hoffman, We shall overcome : Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Black freedom struggle, 1993, p. 14 and Montgomery Police, Arrest report for Rosa Parks, Montgomery, 1955.
[6] De Leon, Leaders from the 1960s : a biographical sourcebook of American activism, 1994, p. 118.
[7] Martin Luther King, Why Jesus Called A Man A Fool, Chicago, 1967.
[8] Albert and Hoffman, We shall overcome : Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Black freedom struggle, 1993, pp. 20-21.
[9] Ibid., p. 17.
[10] Crosby, Garrison, the non-resistant, Chicago, 1905, pp. 15-16.
[11] One may be at liberty to argue that their ends were in fact of important difference. Malcolm X was not seeking integration but better treatment of the class in general, while King saw integration of whites and blacks to be a primary objective of the civil rights movement.
[12] Clark, King, Malcolm, Baldwin : three interviews, Middletown, 1985, p. 43.
[13] Malcolm X, Telegram from Malcolm X, 1964.
[14] Note: Malcolm X released these comments prior to King’s public stance on Vietnam.
[15] Malcolm X, Message to Grassroots, 1963. Note: I have taken to liberty to presume that this is an attack at King’s public position of the issues. However, it must be noted that Malcolm’s Message to Grassroots was not written to or for King as far as I can tell from my research. It does seem plausible that the attack on King’s beliefs were designed to ensure that Malcolm’s followers could be convinced of their position.
[16] Martin Luther King, Methodist Student Leadership Conference Address, Lincoln, 1964
[17] Clark, King, Malcolm, Baldwin : three interviews, 1985, p.23.
[18] Young and Sehgal, Walk in My Shoes : Conversations between a Civil Rights Legend and his Godson on the Journey Ahead, New York, 2010, p. 199.
[19] Ibid., pp. 196-197.
[20] Clark, King, Malcolm, Baldwin : three interviews, 1985, pp. 8-9.
[21] Post, Civil Rights Leaders Rapped on Vietnam, 1966.
[22] The Washington Post, A Tragedy, 1967.
[23] Post, Civil Rights Leaders Rapped on Vietnam, 1966, and The Washington Post, Veterans Accuse King, 1967.
[24] Clark, King, Malcolm, Baldwin : three interviews, 1985, p. 9.
[25] Young and Sehgal, Walk in My Shoes : Conversations between a Civil Rights Legend and his Godson on the Journey Ahead, 2010, p. 165.
[26] Louis, King's Viet War Stand Called Wrong by 73%, 1967.
[27] Talking Heads, Interview with Tim Costello, 2009.
[28] Clark, King, Malcolm, Baldwin : three interviews, 1985, p. 43.
[29] Albert and Hoffman, We shall overcome : Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Black freedom struggle, 1993, pp. 18-19.
[30] De Leon, Leaders from the 1960s : a biographical sourcebook of American activism, 1994, p. 120.

Monday, September 12, 2011

Garrison's 'Declaration of Sentiments'

This is a really powerful piece of writing, which I analysed for university. It has really challenged me, and I encourage you to read it also. It is short, readable, and interesting. This guy inspired William Wilberforce, Leo Tolstoy, and others. Check it out here: http://goo.gl/S7J1E

The message that Garrison sent to the Boston Peace Convention in 1838 was clear: ‘we cannot acknowledge allegiance to any human government, neither can we oppose any such government by resort to physical force’. [1] Purporting a strong pacifistic claim, Garrison’s view is that force may never be used, whether for good or for evil, by the oppressed or the oppressor. He believes this because of his conviction: that man can only serve one master, God, and therefore cannot serve any human government. Passion is embodied in his prose, having written the entirety of the ‘Declaration of Sentiments’ in a single afternoon.[2] According to Garrison, ‘nothing is plainer’ than the view that the use of physical force to punish an evil-doer is forbidden by the teachings of Christianity.[3]

Living within the moral law is crucial for Garrison, as it was in Kant’s moral philosophy. Garrison’s views are reflective of a strand of deontology which suggests that one should do what is right, come what may. However, Garrison also supports a peculiar appeal to consequentialism suggesting that the only way to triumph over evil is through doing good. Essentially he is suggesting that the results would be worse if one were to break the (moral) law to achieve what one thinks may lead to better consequences. This is not, however, strictly an appeal to the afterlife. Garrison’s view is that violence is intrinsically bad and therefore can never be a tool to bring about better consequences.

Garrison applies a consistency test to his ideas, suggesting that if we allow ourselves to use force in order to secure a good of some kind, we must also grant the same license to other individuals, states, and governments.  However idealistic, this test carries moral and intuitive weight because if we, as well as our enemies, were to apply the same principles, everyone would be better off.

In addition to putting forward arguments supporting pacifism, Garrison also is in favour of anarchism. He writes against all forms of human government claiming that ‘laws are enforced virtually at the point of the bayonet’.[4] Garrison argues that forcing men to do what it right ‘on pain of imprisonment or death’ is in conflict with his highly held ideals of forgiveness and love for ones enemy. Therefore, his philosophy (and religion, he argues) compels him to rebuke human governments so long as they require force to continue to exist.

The author’s opinions are based on a belief which does not have ‘universal’ support in any sense, but one which has had great influence in his country. Regardless of whether or not you choose to accept the Christian bible as truth, it is important to note that the leaders of America in the 19th century mainly associated with the Christian Protestant tradition. It seems conceivable that Garrison is simply asking what Martin Luther King Junior was to ask of America a century later: ‘be true to what you said on paper’.[5] Garrison reveals a deep passion for his ideals of non-violence and righteousness in the ‘Declaration of Sentiments’.


[1] Silverman, American radical thought : the libertarian tradition, Lexington, Mass, 1970, p. 144.
[2] Villard, Garrison and Tolstoy, William Lloyd Garrison on non-resistance; together with a personal sketch, New York, 1972, p. 23.
[3] Ibid., p. 22.
[4] Silverman, American radical thought : the libertarian tradition, 1970, p. 145.
[5] Martin Luther King, I've Been to the Mountaintop, Memphis, 1968.

Wednesday, August 3, 2011

Revelations

I wrote this song after reading an article by Tim Foster that I recommend you check out if you get the chance. 


Revelations
June 16, 2011
9:21 PM 16/06/2011
Christiansz
Capo 2

Verse 1

Is this just the way we're programmed or how we're meant to be?
For what purpose do we surface spreading our disease?
The claim is empirical and the findings spark belief
The motives for our actions must be something more than me

Have we captured our future selves, foreshadowed by our deeds?
How can love come of evil when people are our means?
Are we more than vessels in a cumulative sea?
Adding to the question of what being really means.

Chorus
The world is waiting, for transformation
A new beginning, REVELATIONS
Kingdom descending, the broken mending
Our hearts are anchored, in REVELATIONS

Verse 2
The ontology of biology is more than meets the eye
It's when the consciences of creatures suddenly come alive
Living in a vacuum of all that i can hide
Forbearing every weakness with an disembodied guise

Chorus
The world is waiting, for transformation
A new beginning, REVELATIONS
Kingdom descending, the broken mending
Our hearts are anchored, in REVELATIONS

Bridge
Your will be done
Your Kingdom come
Your will be done
Your Kingdom come