So I really, truly do not want to dominate the discussion (take Philosophy as Conversation with me if you want that! T, Th, 8:15, spring semester. (note to self: you use too many parentheses.)) I'd be happy to carry out a conversation right here on this little ol' blog. I'd even give Collo hours for it. That said, here are some additional thoughts prompted by today's discussion.
(Resist the urge to put this whole paragraph in parentheses. Must resist. Ah, too weak...I think this kind of engagement is sort of the point, or at least a point, of this class. The class has prompted me to think about all kinds of things I would not have otherwise thought about. I've reflected on things, been challenged on things, and have had to confront things coming at me from different points of view. Those are all good things, and I know those are all things Pat hopes to accomplish with the course. Education should be about the free exchange of ideas. That means voicing opinions and exploring alternatives. We may turn out to be wrong, and that's important to know. We don't find that out if we don't play the game. Our knowledge doesn't advance in isolation. We have to engage in the sometimes messy arena of academic discourse. I think it's fun, too, but your mileage may vary. Anyway, that's the spirit of all of this. I want to engage the ideas, and I want to know if I'm wrong. I want to hear contrary views, and I want to try to defend my own. At the end of the day, I most want to believe things that are true, and I don't know any other way to go about that.)
Okay, with that out of the way...I was thinking about the discussion today in connection to my own vegetarianism. I think meat-eating is natural for humans. There is a lot of evolutionary evidence for this. Eating meat seems to have played a significant factor in the development of our brains, for example. People have eaten meat for a very, very long time. My choice to not eat meat is, in that sense, unnatural.
On top of the naturalness of eating meat, there are also a lot of cultural norms surrounding it. We eat turkey on Thanksgiving and lamb on Easter. Tailgating is for random assortments of beef and pork products, and bacon is apparently for everything. As a man, I'm supposed to love steak and softcore pornographic Hardee's commercials of women biting into greasy hamburgers. These things do not seem natural to me. They are clearly a product of our culture. They are cultural norms that are built on our natural inclination and evolutionary history of eating meat.
So I think the general predominance of meat-eating has both natural and cultural origins. I have seen many vegans and vegetarians get very animated and be very intent on denying the naturalness of eating meat. I take it that they believe they need to deny this in order to refute some argument that leads to the conclusion that eating meat is okay. I think this is mistaken. We don't need to be pushed into denying things that are true in order to argue for the wrongness of eating meat. The better place to cut off the argument is in the purported connection between something being natural and it being permissible. Violence may come naturally to us, but that doesn't make it permissible. Yes, eating meat may be natural, but so what? It is, and you shouldn't do it. That's perfectly consistent, and doesn't involve denying what seems to be true about our nature.
On culture, I can say from experience that it is hard to fight against the cultural traditions on this. They are powerful. I hear their call. I do think it's valuable to recognize them and, if you determine that they are promulgating immorality, to stop engaging in them. But I also recognize that that decision comes with a cost. The absolute best (and last) hot dog I ate was in 1998 outside of old Yankee Stadium (where, incidentally, I saw one of the best teams ever lose to the Anaheim Angels when they still sucked. (Damn it, Hedden, just stop with the parentheses, seriously.)) There was something unbelievably satisfying about that hot dog. Replacing that with a gelatinous hot dog shaped combination of chemicals, additives, and textured vegetable protein just doesn't do the same thing for me. I can't imagine having that same feeling of satisfaction gnawing on a carrot stick. I think that's largely cultural, maybe partly natural. I think those feelings have value and all of those traditions involving meat have value. That's all value that I miss out on because I've made a decision to not eat meat. I think it's the right decision, but I also think there are good things in the world that I miss out on because of it.
How does all or any of this relate to the discussion in class? Oh, hell, I don't really know. Maybe this. There is (it seems to me) a natural inclination for women to be more nurturing. There are also a lot of cultural norms that have been built around that. A lot of those are repressive and limit people's ability to live the life they want. Those norms are powerful, and they are often destructive. But we can work to change the norms without denying the underlying biological factors. Again, nature isn't normative. We can be natural born meat-eaters and natural-born nurturers and permissibly choose to do neither. Cultural traditions make both of those choices harder. That's a problem, and one we should try to change. But we should keep in mind that there is value in doing what comes naturally, and value in participating in some cultural traditions (that hot dog was damn good, I promise.) And, more importantly, whatever ends we seek and whatever kind of culture we want, we shouldn't elevate that above the truth. Truth matters, even when it is inconvenient for our particular ends.
Tuesday, October 25, 2016
Monday, October 24, 2016
Semi-random thoughts on the discussion of "A Doll('s) House"
(1) Maybe I'm the one taking crazy pills here, so feel free to set me straight. One thing that was discussed in class was whether women were "natural born nurturers." First, obviously #notallwomen. With that out of the way, it seems to me that there is a natural inclination for women to be more nurturing. Clearly some of this is a result of culture, but I don't think that's the whole story. Patriarchy isn't responsible for female chimpanzees taking care of their young is it? There's something biological there, no? Did the patriarchy alter evolution? Did those genes disappear in humans only to be replaced by a repressive culture? I'm skeptical, to say the least.
I don't think much hinges in terms of equality on the naturalness of nurturing, so I'm not sure why there is the desire to deny what seems (to me) to be plainly obvious. As a pure description of the actual world, I think there is a strong case to be made for the claim that women are more naturally inclined to nurturing. But nature isn't normative, or so says me. That something is natural doesn't mean you should do it, and unnaturalness doesn't equate with wrongness. Writing with my left hand is incredibly unnatural for me. So what? Surely that doesn't make it wrong. And having and nurturing children might be natural for women, but so what? That doesn't mean there's any obligation to do that.
Our equality as people doesn't depend on any descriptive equality. We are not, in fact, equal in that sense. Some are smarter, better looking, stronger, taller, etc. than others. If our principle of equality is based on actual equality, we're in trouble. The point of a principle of equality is to be prescriptive, not descriptive. We should treat people (and maybe animals) with dignity and respect, and their individual interests should be protected with rights. That's not because we all have the same qualities, natural or otherwise. It's because...well, I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader, except to say that I don't think it is because, absent culture, we are all really just alike.
(2) Another idea that was batted around was whether Nora's main responsibility, or ultimate responsibility, is to herself. I don't think the implication was that she has no responsibility to her children, but it sometimes veered towards that. That seems wrong to me. When you are responsible for bringing a big bundle of needs into the world, it seems to me you incur an obligation to meet those needs. So yes, she has obligations to her children. The question is whether those obligations are outweighed, or are rendered moot, by other circumstances. We do often obligate ourselves in ways that limit our freedom. That's what a promise is. I restrict my freedom to do whatever I want by promising that I will do what I promise to do. If my promises are really "I promise to do this, provided it is what I want to do at the time" then the promise isn't a promise. Of course, there are conditions that would make it permissible to not fulfill a promise. If I promise to have lunch with you and getting there requires navigating a minefield, surely it's permissible to fail to meet that obligation. So how close is Nora's situation to that? That seems to me the (or a) relevant question.
(3) Perhaps related to that, here's a wee thought experiment. What if Torvald "got woke" and realized the unequal, oppressive nature of his marriage. He now wants a genuinely equal partnership. And let's say Nora is quite happy being a doll. She wants the marriage to remain as it is. Is it okay for Torvald to just leave her and the children? Do we have the same reactions to that as to Nora leaving? Obviously the circumstances are different for them, but maybe thinking about the Bizarro World version of the play is a way to clarify exactly what the differences are that are supposed to make a difference.
(4) On marriage generally, it seems to me important to not discount more traditional marriages. My parents have been married for over 40 years. My mom got married five days after she graduated high school. She never went to college. She had and raised two children, and has only worked for brief periods of time. I don't think she's oppressed, or suffers from false consciousness, or is a victim of the patriarchy. She is living the life she chose, and I don't think she'd trade it. My dad is living the life he chose, and they are both living the life they chose and have continually chosen for 40+ years. It's not the life I chose, which is as it should be. We should be able to make our own choices, including choices about the kinds of relationships we're going to have. But advocating for more options and choices doesn't have to mean discounting one of those choices. If a woman wants most of all to be a mother and to stay at home and raise her children, why is that bad, exactly? It seems to infantilize such women to tell them that that is not what they really want, and that they should want something else.
(5) On a broader note, related to (4), it seems to me important to at least acknowledge the value of tradition. We shouldn't be bound by it, and we should fight injustices. But we also shouldn't avoid things just because they are traditional, or are the way things have always been. A lot of things look stupid and unjustified if you push on them. Is there any rational defense of Santa Claus? I don't know of one, but that doesn't mean participating in that particular tradition has no value. Of course, it doesn't mean you have to participate in it. But there is some value in it, and that value is largely, I think, tied to it being a cultural tradition. Similarly, I think we should at least acknowledge the importance of traditional institutions. Maybe some need to be changed, or overthrown entirely. But that should be done cautiously. We should recognize the limits of our own reasoning and our own fallibility. It can be dangerous to substitute the theory of the day for hundreds or thousands of years of tradition. Again, that doesn't mean we should never do that, or we should elevate tradition above anything else. We shouldn't. But it's not nothing, and it's not without value.
Okay, thus concludes my semi-random, gadfly-ish thoughts from the back of the room. Fire away.
I don't think much hinges in terms of equality on the naturalness of nurturing, so I'm not sure why there is the desire to deny what seems (to me) to be plainly obvious. As a pure description of the actual world, I think there is a strong case to be made for the claim that women are more naturally inclined to nurturing. But nature isn't normative, or so says me. That something is natural doesn't mean you should do it, and unnaturalness doesn't equate with wrongness. Writing with my left hand is incredibly unnatural for me. So what? Surely that doesn't make it wrong. And having and nurturing children might be natural for women, but so what? That doesn't mean there's any obligation to do that.
Our equality as people doesn't depend on any descriptive equality. We are not, in fact, equal in that sense. Some are smarter, better looking, stronger, taller, etc. than others. If our principle of equality is based on actual equality, we're in trouble. The point of a principle of equality is to be prescriptive, not descriptive. We should treat people (and maybe animals) with dignity and respect, and their individual interests should be protected with rights. That's not because we all have the same qualities, natural or otherwise. It's because...well, I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader, except to say that I don't think it is because, absent culture, we are all really just alike.
(2) Another idea that was batted around was whether Nora's main responsibility, or ultimate responsibility, is to herself. I don't think the implication was that she has no responsibility to her children, but it sometimes veered towards that. That seems wrong to me. When you are responsible for bringing a big bundle of needs into the world, it seems to me you incur an obligation to meet those needs. So yes, she has obligations to her children. The question is whether those obligations are outweighed, or are rendered moot, by other circumstances. We do often obligate ourselves in ways that limit our freedom. That's what a promise is. I restrict my freedom to do whatever I want by promising that I will do what I promise to do. If my promises are really "I promise to do this, provided it is what I want to do at the time" then the promise isn't a promise. Of course, there are conditions that would make it permissible to not fulfill a promise. If I promise to have lunch with you and getting there requires navigating a minefield, surely it's permissible to fail to meet that obligation. So how close is Nora's situation to that? That seems to me the (or a) relevant question.
(3) Perhaps related to that, here's a wee thought experiment. What if Torvald "got woke" and realized the unequal, oppressive nature of his marriage. He now wants a genuinely equal partnership. And let's say Nora is quite happy being a doll. She wants the marriage to remain as it is. Is it okay for Torvald to just leave her and the children? Do we have the same reactions to that as to Nora leaving? Obviously the circumstances are different for them, but maybe thinking about the Bizarro World version of the play is a way to clarify exactly what the differences are that are supposed to make a difference.
(4) On marriage generally, it seems to me important to not discount more traditional marriages. My parents have been married for over 40 years. My mom got married five days after she graduated high school. She never went to college. She had and raised two children, and has only worked for brief periods of time. I don't think she's oppressed, or suffers from false consciousness, or is a victim of the patriarchy. She is living the life she chose, and I don't think she'd trade it. My dad is living the life he chose, and they are both living the life they chose and have continually chosen for 40+ years. It's not the life I chose, which is as it should be. We should be able to make our own choices, including choices about the kinds of relationships we're going to have. But advocating for more options and choices doesn't have to mean discounting one of those choices. If a woman wants most of all to be a mother and to stay at home and raise her children, why is that bad, exactly? It seems to infantilize such women to tell them that that is not what they really want, and that they should want something else.
(5) On a broader note, related to (4), it seems to me important to at least acknowledge the value of tradition. We shouldn't be bound by it, and we should fight injustices. But we also shouldn't avoid things just because they are traditional, or are the way things have always been. A lot of things look stupid and unjustified if you push on them. Is there any rational defense of Santa Claus? I don't know of one, but that doesn't mean participating in that particular tradition has no value. Of course, it doesn't mean you have to participate in it. But there is some value in it, and that value is largely, I think, tied to it being a cultural tradition. Similarly, I think we should at least acknowledge the importance of traditional institutions. Maybe some need to be changed, or overthrown entirely. But that should be done cautiously. We should recognize the limits of our own reasoning and our own fallibility. It can be dangerous to substitute the theory of the day for hundreds or thousands of years of tradition. Again, that doesn't mean we should never do that, or we should elevate tradition above anything else. We shouldn't. But it's not nothing, and it's not without value.
Okay, thus concludes my semi-random, gadfly-ish thoughts from the back of the room. Fire away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)