Staking a claim is victory
In a world muddled with moral equivalency, even the most nonsensical position wins territory in the intellectual battleground simply by assertion. Maybe this is the nature of our legal system, and the philosophy behind legal discourse has permeated all aspects of civilization.
The main stream media implicitly adopts this point/counterpoint method and calls it objectivity. The force of the argument, or even the credibility of the arguer do not mitigate the supposedly balanced presentation of both points of view. Is it any wonder that opinion polls tend to be so narrowly balanced in three portions: those for, those against and those who say "duh"? Take any issue, the war in Iraq, evolution, capitalism, abortion, globalism, nuclear weapons, global warming, things which cause cancer, it really doesn't matter. A Google search of any of these topics results in a fairly equal mix of those who support an issue and those who oppose an issue. Is it any wonder that so many people exhibit indifference to the major issues affecting our world today?
Smugness and indifference have become a sign of sophistication. The great philosophies of history have all risen and fallen to be replaced with a single word: whatever.
Prophets of doom in the twentieth century warned us of the information overload which was already underway even prior to the introduction of the personal computer or the internet. But maybe the problem is not that there is too much information; rather, it is our inability to process the information correctly.
When we cannot distinguish between murder and war, freedom fighters and terrorists, or democracy and dictatorship, then do we suffer from information overload or from a deficit of reason? Moral cloudiness is a result of the way in which information is presented, point counterpoint, pro and con, our side and their side, our perspective and their perspective. All points of view are equal. All points of view are valid from the perspective of the viewer. The virus has an equal standing with the patient in a world without moral distinction.
Unfortunately, this legalistic approach to reality has consequences. In a morally blind world, I can file a lawsuit against anyone for anything, and I have already won some ground simply by making the case. In all too many instances, the plaintiff wins simply by complaining. It all depends on the risk calculation: how much do I stand to lose and what are my chances.
Our radical open mindedness has castrated our moral sensibility and judgment. So the barbarians stake their claims and win the war by simply engaging in battle. Meanwhile, most of us intellectually retreat from the issues because there are "two sides to every issue". Or not. Whatever.
The main stream media implicitly adopts this point/counterpoint method and calls it objectivity. The force of the argument, or even the credibility of the arguer do not mitigate the supposedly balanced presentation of both points of view. Is it any wonder that opinion polls tend to be so narrowly balanced in three portions: those for, those against and those who say "duh"? Take any issue, the war in Iraq, evolution, capitalism, abortion, globalism, nuclear weapons, global warming, things which cause cancer, it really doesn't matter. A Google search of any of these topics results in a fairly equal mix of those who support an issue and those who oppose an issue. Is it any wonder that so many people exhibit indifference to the major issues affecting our world today?
Smugness and indifference have become a sign of sophistication. The great philosophies of history have all risen and fallen to be replaced with a single word: whatever.
Prophets of doom in the twentieth century warned us of the information overload which was already underway even prior to the introduction of the personal computer or the internet. But maybe the problem is not that there is too much information; rather, it is our inability to process the information correctly.
When we cannot distinguish between murder and war, freedom fighters and terrorists, or democracy and dictatorship, then do we suffer from information overload or from a deficit of reason? Moral cloudiness is a result of the way in which information is presented, point counterpoint, pro and con, our side and their side, our perspective and their perspective. All points of view are equal. All points of view are valid from the perspective of the viewer. The virus has an equal standing with the patient in a world without moral distinction.
Unfortunately, this legalistic approach to reality has consequences. In a morally blind world, I can file a lawsuit against anyone for anything, and I have already won some ground simply by making the case. In all too many instances, the plaintiff wins simply by complaining. It all depends on the risk calculation: how much do I stand to lose and what are my chances.
Our radical open mindedness has castrated our moral sensibility and judgment. So the barbarians stake their claims and win the war by simply engaging in battle. Meanwhile, most of us intellectually retreat from the issues because there are "two sides to every issue". Or not. Whatever.
posted by moleses | 2:52 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home