Scene Week a la Shark Week

 I'm teaching Ethics this Spring. 

And here, for your moral pleasure, Scene Week from my syllabus:

SCENE WEEK

DO: Watch the scenes and think about the questions posed below. That’s all.

Crimes and Misdemeanors

The Seder Scene from Woody Allen’s Crimes and Misdemeanors

Judah is having a flashback/memory from his childhood. At this point in the movie, he has had his lover killed. As you watch the clip ask:

Did the Nazis get away with it?

Does might make right?

Are human impulses basically decent?

Is anything “handed down in stone?” Is anything objectively (categorically) good or bad/right or wrong?

“That which originates from a black deed will blossom in a foul manner?” Agree or disagree? Why?

Is history written by the winners?

What is the importance of history when thinking about ethics/morality?

Groundhog Day

The I Am A God Scene from Groundhog Day

(Warning – depictions of self-harm)

Nihilism is the lack of values. This relates to Ethics because values are a necessary condition for ethics. One can’t have ethics without values.

The scene in the movie plays on the interconnection between time, both finite and eternal, (“I am an immortal.”) and values and ethics. Because Phil is immortal (though he is “trapped” in the same day) he becomes nihilistic. He kills himself, uses people, and “isn’t going to live by their rules anymore!”

The What If There Were No Tomorrow Scene from Groundhog Day

What happens to ethics/morality if time doesn’t press/demarcate on our lives (if we are eternal)?

Do concepts like duty, compassion, or justice still hold meaning if there is no future to consider?

Sophie’s Choice or Beloved (No scene available for Beloved)

(Warning: While there is no depicted violence, the scene is incredibly sad.)

The Choice Scene in Sophie’s Choice

For those of you with sensitive constitutions (full disclosure, I had trouble finishing the scene), here is a summary:

On the night Sophie arrives at Auschwitz, a Nazi makes her choose which of her two children will die immediately by gassing and which will continue to live.

Which moral calculus can be used to make the choice?

Can Kant’s Categorical Imperative help? Consequentialism? To what duty is Sophie beholden in this situation? What is the greatest good for the greatest number in this situation?

 

In Beloved by Toni Morrison, Sethe must choose between killing her children or allowing them to be taken back into slavery.

Which moral calculus can be used to make the choice?

Can Kant’s Categorical Imperative help? Consequentialism? To what duty is Sethe beholden in this situation? What is the greatest good for the greatest number in this situation?

Ethical Relativism in To Kill A Mockingbird

At the beginning of the play, To Kill A Mockingbird, Scout Finch is conflicted with the “fact” that Bob Ewell fell on his knife. 

At the conclusion of the play, Scout Finch accepts that Bob Ewell fell on his knife. 

Upon thinking that his son, Jem Finch, stabbed Bob Ewell, Atticus Finch is resolute that the legal process must still be followed. Later, after consultation with Sheriff Heck Tate and Judge Taylor, Atticus accepts that Bob Ewell fell on his knife.

“It depends.”

Moral relativism reminds us that morality is relative to this or that. 

Near the end of the play Scout says, “…you know, there was a religious man who once said, “Lord, I don’t always know the right thing to do, but I think my desire to please you pleases you.”

There is no right thing to do. Right is relative to. And things change. Perspectives change, zeitgeists change, cultural norms change. Ergo, our morality is relative. 

To make a finer relativistic point, Scout says, “Isn’t that what decency is? Trying to do the right thing is the right thing…”

Bob Ewell fell on his knife. We certainly could not run Bob Ewell “falling on his knife” through Kant’s categorical imperative - what if all people acted this way in a similar situation? - and find resolution. 

It depends. 

Bob Ewell was despised enough that the legal process for his death was not worth it. And this came from Atticus who is heavy handed in the play making the case to see the good in everyone. 

It depends.

This dependence, this contextualization, this relativism, doesn’t doom us, it doesn’t entail a slippery slope to anarchy and violence on an unforeseen scale. In fact the anarchy and violence we’ve seen throughout history has always occurred right along with the moral realists claiming their right and wrong “no matter what.” Still those supposed lines were crossed every minute of every day. What is the point of proposing morals if they don’t work, even as concepts? One can ask after reading a history book, “Where is the power of your morals?”

Let us say you are running an organization and one problem you deal with is people killing one another. Now along comes a guy with a spiel for your problem; he says, we’re going to say it is immoral to kill other people. He says we’re going to tell them it is objectively wrong to kill one another. He says we’re going to tell them “no matter what.” Never ok. 

And you shell out the dough for the product: Morality. Objective morality. 

And now let us analyze the effectiveness of the product via history books. 

The product is a failure. People kill each other. 

Why doesn’t morality work, at all? Where is the power of objective morality?

People fearing relativism isn’t the same as the success of morality. Morality fails, consistently; all one needs to do is read the newspaper to understand this. 

Fearing relativism as a slippery slope is tantamount to turning down $30,000 of help for your $100,000 loan because it doesn’t pay it ALL off. 

Relativism, a la To Kill A Mockingbird, will help us live and move through the world in a healthier fashion, even if there is no perfect state of healthiness. 

Bob Ewell fell on his knife.

New Kitten Exposes Myth of Morality

Morality, by definition, is objective. In contrast to ethics, which admits of relativity.

If something is morally wrong (or right), it is that way NO MATTER WHAT. This is the essence (from the greek ontos) and crux of morality.

So we got a kitten. We have yet to name the little gal but my fave so far is Mojo.

When asked to research the timing of shots and spay for the kitten, I come across:

Obligate Carnivore (insert intense music).

It seems this little gal, and cats like her are obligate carnivores.

In short, cats must eat animal flesh...to survive.

So lets go down a couple of holes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predation_problem

https://www.vox.com/2015/6/18/8802755/peter-singer

Some folks want to stop owls from hunting. And cats from surviving. 

Some folks just sidestep and say, "Oh, animals aren't moral agents." 

What are the conditions for moral agency? Who decides? Are the conditions immutable? 

Some talk about collective suffering. Is the cat who can't eat factored into the suffering component?

At bottom, there is no "no matter what" moment for any moral position. It's a myth. 

Thanks Mojo.

Don't Look In The Mirror

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/20/705363744/new-zealand-banning-weapons-like-those-used-in-mosque-attacks-in-christchurch

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced Thursday that the government will ban "military-style semi-automatic weapons and assault rifles," in an attempt to head-off "the kind of horror and attack that we saw on Friday." She said the outlawed weapons will be listed on a website and are the type that were used in the attack on two mosques in Christchurch last week.

We will not follow New Zealand’s lead because of our values. We won’t ban semi-automatic weapons because we value them.

We love military-style semi-automatic weapons. Adore, cherish, esteem...pick a verb.

Have you ever fired a military-style semi-automatic weapon? Oh my gawd the insane power...as fast as you can pull the trigger. Exhilarating! It’s like a roller coaster ride but with gunpowder. Fucking incredible. Better than sex.

Even in a climate controlled, sterile, shooting range, the wash of power from a military-style semi-automatic weapon pulsing through you is so powerful it’ll make you cum your underwear full.

It gets better. Have you ever defended your home or your loved ones with a military-style semi-automatic weapon? What a rush! I keep mine under the bed just in case someone tries to steal our gazing ball from the yard or makes a play for the minivan. Sakes alive, shooting another person in defense of property or loved ones is an immeasurable rush; you just haven’t lived until you’ve killed someone with a military-style semi-automatic weapon as they try to pilfer your lamps.

Is there a greater good argument to be made about banning military-style semi-automatic weapons?

What’s that? I can’t hear you over the awesome cacophony from my AR-15 as I help control the deer population.

BBBBRRR!BBBRrrrbbrbbrbRBBRBBBBBBBBBBB!RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRbRRRRrrrrrrrrrrrr!

[finger rest]

bbbb!bbbbbbbbbrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrRRRRRRRRR!RR!RRRRBBBBBBBBrrr!rBBBBBBBBBBRrbrr!

Don’t look in the mirror America. 
Don’t look at New Zealand. 
Don’t look at the dead bodies. 
Don’t look at your values and don’t mind the dissonance. 

It’ll go away, just like the soul of the country.

Yazoo Piggly Wiggly

In addition to being an atheist, I am also an amoralist or as some say, a moral nihilist. It’s not as bad as it sounds. I follow laws, I treat people and animals well (as well as can be expected for an omnivore), I drive defensively and follow traffic laws (which is more than I can say for many, many other drivers in the northeastern U.S.). Sure, I had a few scrapes as a kid and even a few in my mid-twenties but I have never been arrested and have only received a few speeding tickets. So I am a lot like you when it comes to behavior in most regards. But if you are not a moral nihilist (or a moral relativist) you believe that there is an objective moral measure of actions/behaviors. In short, some deeds are wrong and some are right. 99% of the time this doesn’t matter one iota because we have (here in the US anyway) a legal system that, to an extent, manages morality for us. The difference for me is that there is no ultimate or objective source of morality – no god to say this is right, period and this is wrong, period. Do this, don’t do that, per god. The Coen brothers had some amoral fun with this in the movie O Brother, Where Art Thou? On the lam after escaping prison Delmar and Pete get baptized and Delmar is touting his absolution when Everett points out the grey area between god and the law:

DELMAR

Well that's it boys, I been redeemed!

The preacher warshed away all my

sins and transgressions. It's the

straight-and-narrow from here on out

and heaven everlasting's my reward!

EVERETT

Delmar what the hell are you talking

about? - We got bigger fish to fry-

DELMAR

Preacher said my sins are warshed

away, including that Piggly Wiggly I

knocked over in Yazoo!

EVERETT

I thought you said you were innocent

a those charges.

DELMAR

Well I was lyin' - and I'm proud to

say that that sin's been warshed

away too!  Neither God nor man's got

nothin' on me now! Come on in, boys,

the water's fine!

(later…)

PETE

The preacher said it absolved us.

EVERETT

For him, not for the law! I'm

surprised at you, Pete. Hell, I gave

you credit for more brains than

Delmar.

DELMAR

But there were witnesses, saw us

redeemed!

EVERETT

That's not the issue, Delmar. Even

if it did put you square with the

Lord, the State of Mississippi is

more hardnosed.

So like I say 99% of the time, my amorality won’t be an issue, won’t cross with your moral objectivity. But when you think about it, when you really think about it, Delmar has got a point. So heaven is by far the most important goal is it not? What can possibly trump heaven? How can Mississippi, as Everett states, be more hard-nosed than the requirements for eternal bliss? One can be square with the lord but not a state? When did state or federal governments enter the pantheon of moral fiber such as to usurp god’s place in judging humans? Isn’t this putting the cart before the horse? Don’t laws flow from morality and not the other way round? See, I told you they had fun with it.

So for me, human laws are the ones that really matter and as anyone who’s lived on this planet for more than four years knows, humans are endlessly fallible. Henceforth, our laws are fallible. Our ability to follow laws, be ethical, do the dishes, or to prevent the Broncos from driving 98 yards in 1987: all fallible. But if we’re all fallible and realize said fallibility, then we are all on the same page: not some appealing to god and others not. And there is a lot, a huge amount actually, to being on the same page. Good rulers know and have known the importance of standardization.  Deciding what a pound is or an acre is puts everyone on the same page, whether you are farming an acre, buying an acre, or selling an acre. Our so called objective morality is nothing but a stab at standardization – a stab at getting everyone on the same page. It’s the process, the steps to get there that actually end up throwing a wrench in the system. Instead of appealing to just the importance of standardization and trusting in this (and a leviathan or state to enforce said standardization) some folks said no no no, we need some more muscle if we really want this to stick. Let’s not only tie it to this life (laws) but let’s also tie it to everlasting life and instead of this-life or earthly enforcement, let’s enforce via eternal salvation or eternal damnation. That should get these people to straighten up and fly right. Hmm, we’re going to have to codify some things from the almighty. Hmm what to codify, how to communicate messages from an unearthly being to earthly beings? Hmm…
 History is nothing if not proof that this little effort failed at a grotesque level and actually did more harm than good. So again as Nietzsche said “human, all too human” but at least we’re all in this amoral world together and can make it better or at least more manageable on a day to day basis just by accepting our very fallible standardization – perfection isn’t the goal, consistency and not getting murdered for thinking the wrong thing is.

Exhibit A

Going to plant a seed for you dear blogger readers.

Two words.

Very important words.

All I need are these two words, to turn your world, upside down.

And no the two words, are not upside down. Though that is clever.

No, the two words (drum roll) are…

abstract and arbitrary.

ab·stract

adjective

adjective: abstract

abˈstrakt,ˈabˌstrakt/

1.      1.

existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.

"abstract concepts such as love or beauty"

synonyms:		theoretical, conceptual, notional, intellectual, metaphysical, ideal, philosophical, academic; rareideational "abstract concepts"
antonyms:	actual, concrete

o    dealing with ideas rather than events.

"the novel was too abstract and esoteric to sustain much attention"

o    not based on a particular instance; theoretical.

"we have been discussing the problem in a very abstract manner"

o    (of a word, especially a noun) denoting an idea, quality, or state rather than a concrete object.

"abstract words like truth or equality"

o    of or relating to abstract art.

"abstract pictures that look like commercial color charts"

synonyms:		nonrepresentational, nonpictorial "abstract art"
antonyms:	representational

verb

verb: abstract; 3rd person present: abstracts; past tense: abstracted; past participle: abstracted; gerund or present participle: abstracting

abˈstrakt/

1.      1.

consider (something) theoretically or separately from something else.

"to abstract science and religion from their historical context can lead to anachronism"

2.      2.

extract or remove (something).

"applications to abstract more water from streams"

synonyms:

extract, isolate, separate, detach "he abstracted the art of tragedy from its context"

o    used euphemistically to say that someone has stolen something.

"his pockets contained all he had been able to abstract from the apartment"

o    withdraw.

"as our relationship deepened you seemed to abstract yourself"

3.      3.

make a written summary of (an article or book).

"staff who index and abstract material for an online database"

synonyms:

summarize, précis, abridge, condense, compress, shorten, cut down, abbreviate, synopsize; rareepitomize "we'll be abstracting material for an online database"

noun

noun: abstract; plural noun: abstracts; noun: the abstract

ˈabˌstrakt/

1.      1.

a summary of the contents of a book, article, or formal speech.

"an abstract of his inaugural address"

synonyms:

summary, synopsis, précis, résumé, outline, abridgment, digest, summation; wrap-up "an abstract of her speech"

2.      2.

an abstract work of art.

"a big unframed abstract"

3.      3.

that which is abstract; the theoretical consideration of something.

"the abstract must be made concrete by examples"

Origin

Middle English: from Latin abstractus, literally ‘drawn away,’ past participle of abstrahere, from ab- ‘from’ + trahere ‘draw off.’

ar·bi·trar·y

ˈärbəˌtrerē/

adjective

adjective: arbitrary

1.      based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

"his mealtimes were entirely arbitrary"

synonyms:		capricious, whimsical, random, chance, unpredictable; More casual, wanton, unmotivated, motiveless, unreasoned, unsupported, irrational, illogical, groundless, unjustified; personal, discretionary, subjective "an arbitrary decision"
antonyms:	reasoned, rational

o    (of power or a ruling body) unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority.

"arbitrary rule by King and bishops has been made impossible"

synonyms:		autocratic, dictatorial, autarchic, undemocratic, despotic, tyrannical, authoritarian, high-handed; More absolute, uncontrolled, unlimited, unrestrained "the arbitrary power of the prince"
antonyms:	democratic

o    Mathematics

(of a constant or other quantity) of unspecified value.

Origin

late Middle English (in the sense ‘dependent on one's will or pleasure, discretionary’): from Latin arbitrarius, from arbiter ‘judge, supreme ruler,’ perhaps influenced by French arbitraire .

Morality, like measurement, is an abstraction we kooky humans, superimpose upon the world. Feet or meters or yards or minutes or seconds don’t exist in nature. If you can’t sense it, it’s abstract and you have never, ever, yes you, sensed a yard or a second.

Ah but measurements sure are valuable to us kooky humans. Ah, quantity how we love you. Quantify this quantify that, measure this measure that…we love it.

But, can we say the same about morality?

Not so much. History is nothing if not Exhibit A for the trial of moral objectivity. Right and wrong are as relative as Uncle Chester, and none of us like Uncle Chester, but dammit he’s kin, so we keep him around.

Morality is arbitrary, another whim we superimpose upon the world but without the value of measurement.

In fact, it might be time to jettison this arbitrary, relative, nonsense in favor of some good old cogitatin’.

Who’s with me?!