One analogy that I have often heard is that different ideologies can be viewed as lenses, ways of viewing the world. One can pick up their capitalist libertarian lens and take a look at society. Through this lens one can be generally highly appreciative of the freedom one has in America but can be critical of laws which prohibit certain freedoms such as the use of particular drugs or certain large budget government programs. Through a Marxist lens, one can view society as a system of control in which a few wealthy individuals rule over the masses. One would be critical of large corporations in which the majority of the profits go to the few and which the majority of the people work long hours for much less pay.
When I think of all these different theories and making a moral judgment, I pretend the moral judgment is a blinding light and then think of which shade of glasses is appropriate to wear for the given situation. I select my shade to wear by trying on a variety of sunglasses and sometimes decide on a blend of certain pairs or perhaps even inventing a new pair.
More!
For example, the issue of abortion and abortion rights I think is a puzzling issue for many, myself included. When making a moral judgment on this issue one may be confused about conflicting moral principles. One common lens surrounds the idea that abortion is a form of murder. This lens emphasizes both that it is immoral to kill, whether it’s a life or a potential person. Another lens is the civil rights lens which people make different cases for. Some look at Roe v. Wade and view abortion as a privacy issue whereas others view that the fetus is a life and therefore deserves rights. Lastly, there is the utilitarian lens which views the situation as making abortion legal alleviates the amount of suffering that would be caused by women who would resort to alternative means to have abortion if it were outlawed. Furthermore the utilitarian perspective would look at the amount of suffering that would be inflicted upon a fully developed person versus a pre-nervous system fetus. When considering all these different lenses, then perhaps it is appropriate to select the right pair of sunglasses to wear.
I thought Booman wrote an interesting diary titled “Reflections on Being Wrong and Right”. Booman started the post by mentioning:
I think there is an impulse in almost everyone to believe that the world’s problems would be over if only everyone would adopt their philosophy, or world view. It’s most prominent in college students, and seems to ebb over time.
He summarized his diary in a comment where he wrote:
My whole point here is that it is better to have a world where different ends are pursued than one in which all ends are agreed upon.
He mentioned how he disagreed with Kant’s categorical imperative which states “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” Which lead me to a few thoughts…
What I appreciate about various perspectives is their ability to provide us with different lenses, a broader pool to select from. Furthermore, people wearing their own sunglasses make cases for what is good about their sunglasses, what is of value. However, after reading the diary I felt there was something missing.
While I agree with the ying-yang nature of various lenses I think these lenses should be put in context with responsibility. I agree with the sentiment that people are responsible for their own actions and not those of others, but I think it is safe to say that we know that our actions have the potential to influence and often do. I don’t believe that personal responsibility is as simplistic as say Sartre has argued, and I am not, of course, some great judge on this matter but I think an example illustrate this idea.
Granted children are not fully self-aware, cognitively developed beings but surely teachers don’t stand up before classes and swear at young children who did a sloppy job on their homework. While the teacher may not be responsible for the subsequent actions of the children, the teacher probably has the prudence to understand his or her likely influence. Perhaps I don’t endorse Kant’s categorical imperative but I don’t think it follows that the opposite is necessarily true.
Lastly, I would like to briefly address the idea of people believing that if their ideology was adopted the world’s problems would be resolved. One point that I find important is that our ideas are in a specific historical context which is in flux. This implies that those of us who are critical of certain policies and advocate for change aren’t necessarily tied to these ideas for all of eternity. For example, if a person advocates for universal health care, that doesn’t necessarily mean that this person is tied to support a new system forever if it fails or needs tweaking; one can advocate for change and then be open to criticism and other ideas down the line.
As Booman mentioned that these universal ideological opinions are often held by college students, I confess that I am younger than your average blogger. Perhaps my belief that there is value in these lenses insofar as they help us make better sunglasses but not necessarily in the actions of those whose espouse them is naïve, but that’s why I’m here, to learn from you guys.
