Why do we call an owl , wise ? .. I mean , why is wisdom associated
with a bird , which is nothing but an efficient killing machine ? In
fact , that's the only thing its good at . It's flight is nearly silent .
Its power of hearing is almost radar. Its predatory response is
accurate and unforgiving .400 pounds of pressure at the tip of each
talon . The point is , its not wise . it's just deadly.
So where is the wisdom in that ? It's blind efficiency . Efficiency when it comes to end-means rationality. Therein lies the wisdom.
Efficiency has its place.Too often , talk of such things are taken to be heartless even when its in the service of kindness.Talking about perverse consequences can be an intricate topic indeed. Because, once you accept the logic of consequentialism - the notion that acts must be judged by their consequences - then you realize that the puzzles go beyond the matter of good deeds that have bad effects. We must also grapple with the conundrum posed by bad deeds that have good effects.
Should one look at right and wrong as ethical questions? That is the problem.Marcuse says Hegel's ' Philosophy of Right' does not assign a moral category to wrong.The free will inevitably cause wrong .That is written by Marx. The blind anarchy of capitalism. You have to be prepared to reconsider right and wrong. Because basically those are just terms that express a horrible struggle, parts of an equation of pure dialectic.
Take the case of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. A remarkable man .In death , he became a potent symbol. Had he lived , he would have been a far diminished one. His assasination was a galvanizing event. It actually catalyzed the legal fulfillment of the civil rights movement. Crucial legislation were only passed in the wake of his death. Americans were shaken to the core and the country became a more tolerant nation . If we wish to argue that the man's death was a tragedy then we won't argue. But that one death accomplished more than many lives. My question is this. Was it not redeemed by its positive consequences ?
Do not consider this as a cold calculation. I never understand why would anyone consider the calculus of this consequence as cold .The betterment of humanity sounds abstract, yet it entails the betterment of individuals. Each with a story that could tug at your heart and ravage your soul . It is our moral responsibility , as grave as any, to work at the improvement of these individuals.
The harsh light of reason tells us that a prophets death can be a boon to humanity .On the other hand , you eradicate some pests in a third world country , and the consequences can be dire.In either scenario the line we draw between killing and letting die is something of a superstition.It makes no difference to the one who dies because of our action or failure to act.
Imagine a runaway trolley hurling down the tracks . If it continues down the track it kills 5 people. If you throw down a switch it kills one . What do you do ?
Throw the switch ? And save 4 lives. Thus you have deliberately sent one man to his death . Thats murder. had you done nothing , your hands would have been clean. If you think this is narcissism , No. How we feel must be disciplined with what we think . Passion must be within reason. Sometimes the noblest act of all is also one which appalls the most.
Do these issues strike you as academic ? Merely theoretical ?
So where is the wisdom in that ? It's blind efficiency . Efficiency when it comes to end-means rationality. Therein lies the wisdom.
Efficiency has its place.Too often , talk of such things are taken to be heartless even when its in the service of kindness.Talking about perverse consequences can be an intricate topic indeed. Because, once you accept the logic of consequentialism - the notion that acts must be judged by their consequences - then you realize that the puzzles go beyond the matter of good deeds that have bad effects. We must also grapple with the conundrum posed by bad deeds that have good effects.
Should one look at right and wrong as ethical questions? That is the problem.Marcuse says Hegel's ' Philosophy of Right' does not assign a moral category to wrong.The free will inevitably cause wrong .That is written by Marx. The blind anarchy of capitalism. You have to be prepared to reconsider right and wrong. Because basically those are just terms that express a horrible struggle, parts of an equation of pure dialectic.
Take the case of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. A remarkable man .In death , he became a potent symbol. Had he lived , he would have been a far diminished one. His assasination was a galvanizing event. It actually catalyzed the legal fulfillment of the civil rights movement. Crucial legislation were only passed in the wake of his death. Americans were shaken to the core and the country became a more tolerant nation . If we wish to argue that the man's death was a tragedy then we won't argue. But that one death accomplished more than many lives. My question is this. Was it not redeemed by its positive consequences ?
Do not consider this as a cold calculation. I never understand why would anyone consider the calculus of this consequence as cold .The betterment of humanity sounds abstract, yet it entails the betterment of individuals. Each with a story that could tug at your heart and ravage your soul . It is our moral responsibility , as grave as any, to work at the improvement of these individuals.
The harsh light of reason tells us that a prophets death can be a boon to humanity .On the other hand , you eradicate some pests in a third world country , and the consequences can be dire.In either scenario the line we draw between killing and letting die is something of a superstition.It makes no difference to the one who dies because of our action or failure to act.
Imagine a runaway trolley hurling down the tracks . If it continues down the track it kills 5 people. If you throw down a switch it kills one . What do you do ?
Throw the switch ? And save 4 lives. Thus you have deliberately sent one man to his death . Thats murder. had you done nothing , your hands would have been clean. If you think this is narcissism , No. How we feel must be disciplined with what we think . Passion must be within reason. Sometimes the noblest act of all is also one which appalls the most.
Do these issues strike you as academic ? Merely theoretical ?
No comments:
Post a Comment