In an earlier blog, I explored the ideas of objectivity and subjectivity and how different world views impact on our understanding of reality. In 2002 philosopher John Gray also explored these issues and their impact on human thought in a book called Straw Dogs. He wanted to attack the unthinking beliefs of thinking people. The book is a powerful and withering critique of liberal humanism, one of our dominant worldviews.
He suggests that “The prevailing secular world view is a pastiche of current scientific orthodoxy and pious hope”. Which from a Darwinian perspective reinforces the fact that we are animals but which those who call themselves Humanists rail against because they argue that unlike animals, we have choices – or free will. But the idea of free will has its origins not in science but in religion. Not just any religion, but the Christian faith itself! This dichotomy underpins our failure to respond to the existential threat of climate change and our unsustainable lifestyles. We are beset by a huge array of false news, self-illusion, echo chambers, myths, and stories. Our beliefs do not map onto the actual structure of the world (reality). This makes it increasingly difficult for us to make rational, evidence based and logical decisions. This cognitive dissonance between belief-systems and rational thought and action is a major issue and unless we confront it, we will make no real progress towards the goal of a sustainable future.
Gray goes much further and critiques the “religion of Humanism” and its post Christian faith in humanity’s ability to make the world better through scientific advances; their idea of progress he argues is a secular version of the Christian belief in providence or the divine guidance from God.
However, our belief in progress has other origins. The growth of scientific knowledge is cumulative whereas human life is not since any gains in knowledge in one generation may be lost in the next. Our pursuit of more knowledge from all its sources is a mixed blessing. It has offered us longevity along with better living standards and at the same time has allowed us to wreak havoc on a planetary scale.
Scientific progress has been a huge part of modern society. But an equal emphasis has not been placed on the application of ethics as an integral part of scientific enquiry. Scientists are meant to be objective; they are not required to think about the social implications of their research. Knowledge and scientific progress are simply deemed to be good for their own sake. But as the following example points out this inequality between science and ethics has had devastating impacts.
Take a specific example, like the right to bear arms which is protected under American law by the Second Amendment. This is undoubtedly a controversial topic, and one that’s been even more fiercely debated since there have been innumerable school shootings recently. Many of which resulted in multiple deaths and injuries (in 2018 there were 8 making 18 school shootings in total). Is this still a necessary legal entitlement in the 21st century, given that since 1887 ,when this legislation was passed, there is no longer a “Wild West?” Coupled with the fact that scientific progress has resulted in the development of semi-automatic guns which allow one person to kill so many more people than the guns that were around in 1887. Is it in any sense ethical for a politician to support the continuation of this law?
Is humanity’s search for progress to be shaped only by its longing for immortality or should it be based on our yearnings for a good life as an integrated part of a self- sustaining biosphere?
Maybe this implies the need for a clear and unambiguous ecocentric theory of ethics as an essential prerequisite to the creation of a more sustainable world and one in which a programme of green citizenship based on virtue ethics, plays a significant role? Could this provide a philosophical blueprint for a more balanced, sustainable world.
transformativefuturelearning.home.blog 