The current discussion began as a result of my May 22nd post, available here, that critically questioned whether or not obedience should be valued as a virtue. It continued in the response of Jay Jones, who I will summarize as advocating that "to harangue obedience itself is a flawed argument," because "at some level, whether as a child to a parent, a lawbreaker to a police officer or a soldier to a superior, obedience is required." Jay also expressed that "To fret over “violating others liberty in order to obey someone else’s authority,” like I have done, "can be foolhardy". I encourage you to read Jay's thoughts in their full context here, and add to the discussion based on any of the comments or my original post.
Today's post comes as a result of two different replies to what Jay wrote. The first, from Matt Lakemacher, is written from the perspective of one who believes in God and states that, "Obedience has its place in a civilized society, absolutely, but sometimes the noblest thing that one can do is to be disobedient." Secondly, and in contrast to both Jay and Matt, Wes Bertrand wrote from the perspective that, "Obedience can't be a virtue for a volitional, conceptual organism, although religion and statism have always contended otherwise."
From this point forward I wish to let each party speak for themselves, and I hope that in reading this, you too, will be transformed from reader to active participant in this critically important discussion.
Matt Lakemacher
I do believe in a God, and yes at some point subservience is, as you say "logical." The hornet's nest of issues I have with religion and our culture, crystallized in the hymn "Trust and Obey" that I ironically quoted from, is when that subservience is blind, unthinking, and uncritical. It is this elevation of faith and obedience to the level of highest virtue that can lead to the mass murder of Jews just as easily as it can lead men to fly jet planes into skyscrapers (all in the name of religion). Obedience has its place in a civilized society, absolutely, but sometimes the noblest thing that one can do is to be disobedient. Understanding the difference between the authority of God and the authority of man's flawed attempts to understand Him is also critical. Lastly, my comment has everything to do with the previous post, as "sheep-like" following of authority has been a hallmark of organized religion since its inception, and is just as problematic as in cases where the authority in question is the government (or where it's impossible to tell the difference between the two).
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Wes Bertrand
Obedience can't be a virtue for a volitional, conceptual organism, although religion and statism have always contended otherwise. Ask yourself why.
Ask yourself why one human being should obey another human being. We're not talking about doing some practical task for another who is unable or who has other things to do (as in the workplace). Obedience in the present context is synonymous with compliance, submissiveness, acquiescence, passivity, docility, deference, subservience, servility, subjection--in essence, one will bending to another's will.
Jay Jones apparently believes in the master/slave relationship as a way of psychological life, even though the result is psychological death. Most of the statements above seem to indicate that irresponsibility is something to aspire to, that irresponsibility should be considered a hallmark of good behavior. Well, you reap what you sow--children who fear authority won't think for themselves, will lack creativity and passion, and grow up to be masters of still more young slaves. But a leash is just a rope with a collar at both ends, you see.
To use concepts without understanding the nature of concepts spells intellectual--and thus moral--bankruptcy. It also spells the inability to grasp objective reality on one's own terms. Francis Bacon certainly got one thing right: "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." Notice that he didn't say "Humans, to be commanded, must be obeyed," for such a remark would have wreaked of illogic.
Unfortunately, due to the illogic of our present culture, most human beings, especially those who favor a second-hander's code of morality (master/slave relationships), are practically devoid of genuine self-esteem. To use reason in an independent fashion would require them to consider themselves worthy of the task, for no man who has worked on his self-confidence and self-respect would consider obedience a virtue.
Self-sacrifice reveals mind-sacrifice.
Rational animals would be wise to heed the words of philosopher Ayn Rand (via John Galt): "Redeem your mind from the hockshops of authority. Accept the fact that you are not omniscient, but playing a zombie will not give you omniscience—that your mind is fallible, but becoming mindless will not make you infallible—that an error made on your own is safer than ten truths accepted on faith, because the first leaves you the means to correct it, but the second destroys your capacity to distinguish truth from error. In place of your dream of an omniscient automaton, accept the fact that any knowledge man acquires is acquired by his own will and effort, and that that is his distinction in the universe, that is his nature, his morality, his glory."
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/independence.html
In other words, swear by your life and your love of it that you will not live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for yours. Only then will you begin to understand what living as a rational animal entails--and that within each child resides the future of humanity (as Maria Montessori eloquently noted).
W
p.s.,
Self-responsibility and its Effects on Obedience and Aggression
http://www.logicallearning.net/obedience.html
*Please be aware that while I highly value comments, they are moderated to ensure that this doesn't become a forum for personal attacks. If your comment doesn't post, please don't hesitate to email me.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Ok, this apparently needs to be in two parts as it is too long to post as one.
ReplyDeleteFirst, on the religion/obedience issue, it is completely separate from human to human obedience. A belief in a God implies the believer elevating that being. It is completely logical for a follower of a religion to be subservient to whatever God they choose. Now as for when man gets into the fray and stands between the believer and God, then you’re point of “why one human being should obey another human being” comes into play. At that point it is incumbent on the believer to study and actually see what their faith actually purports.
As for believing in a master/slave relationship, that’s an oversimplified pejorative description of being a good parent. I am not going to get into parenting philosophy but simply setting up rules and enforcing them doesn’t inherently raise children who “fear authority” and all its possible (but not guaranteed) results. Nor is doing so a hallmark of “irresponsibility”. Children, while they can make associations, don’t have the ability to really reason (anticipate reactions past a couple steps) until the preteen/teenage years. The brain doesn’t even fully mature until the early to mid twenties. So, up to a certain point (what point is most certainly debatable) a level of obedience is necessary, but should taper off. I think you’d agree that while the ability to read a short novel exists at an early age, the meaning of “Anthem” would most likely be lost on a 5th grader.
The lack of self esteem endemic in our culture is, I think, is based on blind obedience. And here’s where I draw a distinction. Obedience, such as your workplace example is perfectly fine. I loved the character of Hank Reardon. But for each protagonist in “Atlas Shrugged” there were a number of people that worked for them. And yes, in the novel, good men were getting harder to find as the incentive to succeed went away as people blindly adhered to a destructive philosophy. However, simple obedience, to principles and contracts will lead to that workplace type obedience. Or as Hank Rearden said “in free exchange and through the voluntary consent of every man I dealt with - voluntary consent of those who employed me when I started, the voluntary consent of those who work for me now”. I’m in the military. However, I was never coerced into serving. I knew that I would be asked (or forced) into obedience. I however when I enlisted (and both times I reenlisted) consented to this. Hence, whatever I’ve done hasn’t been blind obedience. As for blind obedience itself, while its necessary to be required of a young child. It will tend to, when seen in adults, according to Eric Holder, be a trait of misfits, (those who, for whatever reason e.g. lax parenting, can’t function well in society). So there’s a paradox: At one extreme some force excessive rules down a child’s throat for longer than their needed. At the other, there are those fail to give a child enough structure (one of the common themes of Montessori’s detractors) and they become societal misfits and are prey to become a “true believer”, one subject to true blind obedience.
ReplyDeleteSelf sacrifice isn’t inherently wrong as your quote “Self-sacrifice reveals mind-sacrifice” would imply. A subjective example: I’m single now, I do what I want, buy what I want and act how I choose. But were I married (a contract of consent) I would be compelled to act differently. Now if I had a child or children I would sacrifice my whims for their benefit. Here is a situation where self sacrifice (not doing whatever the hell I want) meets doing what happens to be best for my own. Do you think “Anthem’s” Prometheus wouldn’t sacrifice (at least his time) for his (unborn at the end of the novella) child’s well being?
Outside of situations similar to the workplace and parenting, where do you see obedience being forced on people? Yes, the gov’t has a monopoly on police force. To what extent that power should reach is another issue. However, no cop has ever told me to stop thinking a certain way. How I act (usually speeding or running reds) is another issue. But at that point, the argument can be made that I was putting others in danger. I’m in the military, but if I weren’t, I could say anything I want; so long as it didn’t threaten other’s safety or liberty. And while one may not agree with the current situation in the country, no one is ever barred from leaving.
Jay Jones
Just a side argument to what Matt wrote. I ask this only because I know he and I both grew up in nearly identical environs as far as religion goes: What's the difference between making your only child carry a bunch of wood up a hill only to be willing to sacrifice him upon it and flying a plane into a building?
ReplyDeleteJay Jones
I can think of almost 3,000 differences between those scenarios, each one an innocent life that was needlessly sacrificed to follow someone's misguided interpretation of God's will. Of course, there are parts of me as a rational and enlightenment-influenced thinker living in the 21st Century, that can't help but be appalled by the story of Abraham and Isaac that you cite (as well as much of the Old Testament narrative for that matter). In that specific case, I guess I just have to trust that God never intended for Abraham to actually follow through with that sacrifice of human life, even though on the face of it, it seems to be a rather bizarre and somewhat cruel way of testing Abraham's faith that God would provide an alternate sacrifice. If only Allah had provided another way just before those planes crashed into the World Trade Center and Pentagon! But alas, he did not.
ReplyDeleteYou are correct in the above comparison, only in so far as both stories demonstrate extreme faith and obedience from human beings to a higher power. I wonder, though, if your argument went even further than mine to prove the irrational and sometimes dangerous side of blind belief in and obedience to any religion?
- Matt Lakemacher
One caveat: I will apologize for my spelling just this once. Between phonics and spellcheck my writing has become abysmal. The damn site refreshing and dropping letters here and there doesn’t help. But if you’re wondering why I mix their and they’re up in an otherwise coherent sentence; I’m going to blame whiskey.
ReplyDeleteJay Jones
As a public school educator, I have to say that Phonics works a hell of a lot better than Whole Language as a method for teaching reading and writing (especially spelling). And being hooked on it worked for me! But seriously, our district used W.L. at the primary level a few years back and I pay the price every time I read a writing assignment now. I know this has absolutely NOTHING to do with this blog thread and for that I am sorry. I shall blame the Grey Goose!
ReplyDeleteMatt Lakemacher
P.S. Staying on topic with this comment, I will agree with Jay's take on Montessori Schools: messed up!
Jay Jones (aka Anonymous), I appreciate your thoughtful reply. Faith, in the metaphysical/religious sense, is belief in "something" without proof or evidence. It is antithetical to reason and reality. (Hope, on the other hand, is a perfectly rational psychological process, provided it takes into account the nature of reality.) "God" is an invalid concept, with no coherent definition; it has no referents in reality and springs from human imagination. But wishing won't make it so. As Daniel has noted, regardless of the multitudes superior intelligences (which can't be "supernatural," btw) that may exist in this galaxy and all the billions of other galaxies, human morality consists of rational animals identifying and integrating the facts of reality and making beneficial judgments according to their individual lives and well-being.
ReplyDeleteSo, to be subservient to an invalid concept that is purely imaginary and not based on the facts of reality, is the opposite of anything "complete logical"--for logic, as Ayn Rand noted, is the process or method of non-contradictory identification.
When another person demands obedience of another, there is a fundamental shift in responsibility that precludes independent functioning as nature requires of rational beings. The authoritarian/obedience process subverts rationality in both the order giver and the order follower; the will of neither individual is understood and honored.
continued in next post...
All children past the point of the "language explosion" around the age of two, to the extent that they aren't brain damaged, should be encouraged to be independent and responsible. In other words, their wills should be honored in a fashion that fosters a belief in self and respect for others. To consider children incapable of thinking for themselves and making good choices, is to beget more of the irresponsible behavior often seen in kids whose wills have been contradicted by numerous "authorities" in their lives. It's self-fulfilling prophecy, really.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of whether the meaning of _Anthem_ is lost on a 5th grader, one must question the nature of the role of "5th grader," which is ascribed by an educational system that robs kids of their self-direction abilities--and psychological needs. Most of today's parental and educational approaches are terribly damaging to children's ability to become mature adults. Hence the world we witness. Delayed adolescence is pervasive, which of course serves the interests of those who want to direct the learning of youths. Study "unschooling" and "radical unschooling" principles to grasp how intelligence and morality if best fostered in little people.
http://completeliberty.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=425371
Regardless of the type of workplace, obedience should never be fostered by management. Rather, employers should delegate authority and empower employees to use their own minds to do tasks in optimal ways. Command-and-control tactics don't work; they bring about bad moral and shoddy products and services, and they beget the perceived need for more command-and-control tactics.
continued in next post...
And this brings us to the fundamental aspect of this dialogue. Whether or not you voluntarily entered into a contract with others in the government to work in the military, you always must ask yourself "How exactly does this organization make money?" The answer, of course, is "By means of extortion, in the form of taxation, as well as printing fiat currency (fraud)." This process is not moral. It is not just. It is not voluntary. In fact, it is an insult to respectful businesspersons in the free enterprise sector--and it ultimately destroys entire economies, pitting people against each other (producers versus parasites). Disobedience towards the sick authoritarian system called government is the primary crime, as viewed by the masters and most of the slaves. Obedience to "the law"--regardless of its violation of natural rights and property--is viewed as sacrosanct. Here's an instructive 16mins of video:
ReplyDeleteTrue News 13: Statism is Dead - Part 3 - The Matrix
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P772Eb63qIY
The end (our safety and security) never justifies a coercive, rights-infringing, means. Both God and Government are illogical concepts, but the latter institutionalizes double standards of criminality: What is legally forbidden to individuals is permitted to those in government. Only by ascribing property rights to all aspects of society will "public property" and all it's moral hazards come to an end.
I encourage every curious person to peruse my friend Jim Davies' The Online Freedom Academy, in order to re-educate themselves in the ethics of liberty:
http://tolfa.us
Self-sacrifice is contradictory. The character in _Anthem_ would never condone it. One must prioritize one's values, in accordance to the choices one has made. Sacrificing self to others or desiring that others sacrifice to oneself doesn't demonstrate virtuous behavior. All healthy relationships ought to be based on a rational moral code of self-interest.
Wes
p.s., the Montessori Method adheres to learning phonics, not "whole words" (or "look, say"). Traditional education is destructive to human flourishing, which I outlined in my masters thesis:
http://www.logicallearning.net/learnerdrivened.html
Although I only seem to be addressing postscripts right now, I must clarify that I never said Montessori schools use the Whole Language approach to teaching. I merely made the undefended statement that Montessori Schools are "messed up." It should be understood that such a statement, which I admit is uninformed, could be seen as self-serving. It sounds like my chosen line of work would be entirely unnecessary in a fully Libertarian society.
ReplyDeleteMatt Lakemacher