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?

Nice To Meat You

Is eating meat objectively wrong? To answer this we have to know what objectively means. Let’s start by pointing out that objective is understood as the opposite of subjective. Subjective basically means one person’s point of view.

So when we ask is it wrong to eat meat we can’t just go ask a dude or a gal because then our answer would only be subjective. Consider that said dude and gal may have different answers.

Things are getting tricky.

So how on earth can we know if something is objectively wrong or right if we can’t ask anybody? How can we know anything if we can’t ask anybody?

Don’t panic.

There are some, oh let us call them, for the moment, factoids that we consider to be true without asking anybody.

Like 2+2=4.

We don’t need Dude or Gal’s input here or anyone’s input. We don’t even need anyone to exist. If the dinosaurs hadn’t gone extinct and they’d opened up coffee shops and we kooky humans never existed, 2+2=4 would still be true. Right?

For now, yes.

But let us consider this “never existed” bit, because this is actually a good way to think about objectivity. Whenever asking if anything is objectively true or right or moral we can ask, even if people didn’t exist _____ .

Let’s try it:

Even if people didn’t exist, eating meat would be wrong.

*Cogitates*

So lions are morally in the wrong when they eat meat?

The Venus Flytrap?

Hmmm.

Maybe we need to instead ask is it objectively wrong for people to eat meat.

People may or may not be the worst but some do eat wurst, so we do need to know whether or not it is objectively wrong for them to do so.

How can we get “people eating meat is wrong” to seem like 2+2=4?

All the while minding our even if humans didn’t exist rule, ok fine, guideline.

Wait,

How can we talk about people eating meat while thinking about them not existing?

People are meat so we always, necessarily, have both at the same time. One can't be construed without the other.

This is getting weird.

It's getting meta...

wait for it...

OMG meta is an anagram of meat!

 Do you know what this means?!?!?

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?!