Anarchy and Chance - Part 1, The House of Cards
I finally got to watch The Dark Knight last Saturday with my parents and my little sister. Just as I treated Wanted as a comedy parodying its supposed genre, I ended up seeing The Dark Knight as something other than an action movie. The few combat scenes and the car chases were a chore to watch and were mostly forgettable. No, instead of an action movie, I saw a set of philosophy lessons (wrapped in a beautiful work of film art, but that's for everyone else to talk about).
Though there were many bossy bad guys in the movie (Salvatore was there, as well as the lame-ass Scarecrow), only one of them stood out, reigning over the rest, the one central villain-- I say he's even the central character-- the Joker. But there's also another character who's almost as important, a tortured man whose villainy emerged only near the end of this tragedy, the pitiful Two-Face. It seems to me as if Batman was just there to connect these two villains, to unite the two stories of evil together. It's as if the title misled us into thinking that the story is about Bruce Wayne's alter-ego, when it actually refers to two things: the laughing "knight" of darkness and the "dark night" of a poor soul. I see the movie as just a framework to present these two sides of a philosophical coin, painted on one side, scorched on the other. It is the Coin of Immorality, spinning madly forever and ever.
***
I'm not a monster. I'm just ahead of the curve.Just some time ago I was debating an atheist friend about the proper justification for morality. I argued that while I had an a priori justification for morality in the form of a divine Law Maker, he did not. He only had the little random and selfish human commandments invented by sentimental men. None of his morality is real, not in any rational sense. Atheistic morality is the one described by Terry Pratchett's Death in his conversation with Susan in Hogfather:
You have to start out learning to believe the little lies.
"So we can believe the big ones?"
Yes. Justice. Duty. Mercy. That sort of thing.
"They're not the same at all!"
Really? Then take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder and sieve it through the finest sieve and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. And yet you act, like there was some sort of rightness in the universe by which it may be judged"
"Yes. But people have got to believe that or what's the point?"
My point exactly.
That is the kind of irrational morality that some sentimental atheists have. "I've got to believe in justice and mercy or else what's the point?" My friend, being a typical enlightened Bright, scoffed at my need to believe in a bearded man in the clouds to give meaning to my life, calling my belief system a house of cards, utterly dependent on one assumption that God exists. Yet one simply cannot justify moral conduct in a world where morality is not real in principle. You cannot consider Moral Law as objective if your Law Maker is nobody but yourself, certainly not if your Law Maker is the mythical Everybody Else, the muddled and chaotic collective opinions of the people around you.
In fact the real house of cards is the belief system utterly dependent on subjective individualist dogmas, improvised to fit the current needs, like a complicated magical house held together only by superstition, like a house of Joker cards held together by kieselguhr infused with nitroglycerine. And it only takes grief or fear or gullibility or even boredom to push one card and topple the house to the ground. It takes one flame to make it go boom.
When the chips are down, these civilized people, they'll eat each other.The Joker manages to demonstrate this multiple times throughout the movie, destroying one house of cards after another. Promising more wealth to his minions, they conveniently and systematically killed each other, eliminating the need to split up the loot. He knew that the mob bosses' plan to protect their money will fail, and used their fear to coerce them into irresponsibly hiring a madman-- him-- to solve their problems in the most destructive way possible. He made the people of Gotham agree to sacrificing Batman after he murdered the police commissioner and a judge. He threatened to blow up a hospital if a certain man isn't killed after a set time, leading a bunch of supposedly normal everyday people to go on a vicious manhunt. In the end, Joker drove Gotham's White Knight insane... but let's talk about that some other time.
The atheist would of course complain that even Catholics can be immoral, citing as usual the crusades and the inquisitions and the pedophile priests. But they miss the point entirely because while men can flip-flop and occasionally forget the philosophies they supposedly believe in, the philosophies themselves do not change, and the real test is how (and if) a person can be judged by his own philosophy.
There lies the victory of Christian philosophy: while a Catholic who has gone bad is a bad Catholic, an atheist who has gone bad is not a bad atheist. The Catholic can be condemned by his god because the god is bigger than the Catholic and can therefore be a proper judge. But what can atheism say to a Joker? Even if an atheist invents his own materialist moral codes (as they often do), those moral codes cannot condemn him because they are mere inventions of his, and are therefore smaller than him, changeable and disposable.
You have all these rules, and you think they'll save you.And dispose of them he does. Joker calls himself "ahead of the curve" precisely because he's decided to live his atheism honestly and abolish all the illusory rules while his counterparts and enemies still continue to fool themselves with The Big Lies. In Joker we find the true atheist: amoral, hedonist, unreliable, deadly. And in him one finds at last the kind of atheism that cannot be reasoned with by any religious apologetics. He is an unstoppable force, because his philosophy is at the very least rational and consistent.
The only sensible way to live in this world is without rules.
You have nothing—nothing to threaten me with, nothing to do with all your strength.Just like anyone who has found an unassailable Truth to faithfully hold on to, there is absolutely no fear in Joker, not even the fear of death. Laughing gleefully as he falls down from a tall building, he reminds me of the stories I read as a child about certain Christian martyrs who died in ecstatic bliss, laughing as they were executed. The only difference is that the Christian martyr laughed knowing that he was about to experience the Beatific Vision of the God he truly loved, while Joker laughed thinking he was about to make the most wonderful dramatic and chaotic exit from the absurd and illusory world. One's Truth was in God, while the other's Truth was in Destruction even unto himself.
Meanwhile, the incomplete atheists and the lukewarm believers could only shake their heads in confusion at the sight of these madmen, the Dogmatist and the Anarchist. They walk away ignoring the warnings of one and the threats of the other, and go on living contentedly and happily in their colorful house of cards.
To be continued in Part 2.


11 comments:
First point: You're conflating atheism with nihilism. While one may lead to the other, it doesn't really follow. Atheism is the lack of belief in god/s, no more no less.
Second: You assume the existence of a god. But if god didn't exist or if he isn't the Christian god, then you're actually just living under a moral code that someone else made.
I've made the house of cards argument, too. The only difference is that my house of cards is built on what I think of and is real to me (cogito ergo sum); your house of cards is built on the assumption that there exists a lawgiver that cares what we do.
Basically what you're saying is that meaning can only come from a god that tells us that how we should live. I'm saying that meaning is something we create for ourselves.
The big lie? Sure. We can call it that. There's no need to invent a god to give us the illusion of objective morality. AS I see it, I'm living one lie less.
Oh, and PTerry is an atheist, too.
Heh, of course I know that Pratchett is atheist. Why do you think I keep on making fun of Death's supposed wisdom? Because it's the kind of irrationality that certain atheists (not all) actually fall for. ;-)
Your first point is moot, because I am not arguing that *all* atheists are nihilists. My primary thesis is that the only rational kind of atheism is one that does not invent any sort of morality where (in an atheistic viewpoint) none exist objectively. A rational atheist is an amoral one. Fortunately, very few atheists are rational ones. Many of them today are people who, having received a certain morality from a metaphysics-loving society (not necessarily a Christian one), take morality for granted even after they reject the other "myths" their society believes in.
Why is inventing morality irrational? All morality is invented, even yours.
"All morality is invented, even yours."
Nah, some morality is assumed on principle, or developed logically from assumed principles (e.g. God). That sort of morality is rational. An irrational morality is, for example, one that is taken for granted to be a myth, and is used fully acknowledging that it is a myth. Because one important component of rationality is acting upon things that you actually believe in.
Thing is, the principles that lead to a materialist universe (Hume's Law, etc.) cannot lead to any sort of morality that is not a myth.
Let us put it another way. To say "Killing is wrong because I believe human life is sacred" is totally rational; it flows logically and reasonably from an assumption that the person holds as true (i.e. doctrine).
But to say "I don't hold anything sacred, and I believe we are just blobs of insignificant matter, but I choose to promote the idea that killing is wrong" is irrational because the principles do not match the morality: if you hold yourself to be an insignificant blob of matter, why is a person wrong if he murdered you? Why should you not be killed, other than because your insignificant sentiments object to you being killed?
I am not saying that you should not follow your sentiments, or that you ought to promote the freedom of imprisoned homicidal maniacs; all I'm saying is sentimentality is different from rationality, and in a universe where morality is just invented, there is no philosophical argument against killers, especially those who don't get caught.
I cannot complain much, though. It's fortunate that most atheists are sentimentalists. We've had enough Nietzschean ubermenchen running around during the past world wars. And even though there are some atheists who see nothing wrong with the concept of The Joker, it is good that most of them aren't adventurous enough to try becoming one.
Ah, a person is wrong (killing, stealing, whatever) because the general consensus says it is wrong. That may change a thousand years from now, but the fact that it holds true today makes it so.
It's only "irrational" to you because of your claim that "one important component of rationality is acting upon things that you actually believe in."
But that's not necessarily so. In fact, you're the only person I've encountered who makes this argument.
I make certain assumptions (that we invent morality) and work on an ethical system based on that. It may not be an absolute "truth" but then again, nothing is.
In your worldview, the hypothetical future society that accepts and allows murder would not be morally wrong. There will be nothing to judge them against, and all their atrocities will never be called to justice, because they will deny that what they are doing are even atrocities, and there is no God, no Final Judgement for them to face.
In other words, your worldview is nothing but moral despair, and as your worldview cannot be proven, then I will happily stay away from it.
And if you think a person who willingly acts upon things for no justifiable reason (e.g. living a lie) can somehow be rational, then I'll be happy to agree to disagree. :)
It is curious to see, though, how one could utterly hate a pie-in-the-sky fairy tale so much that he'd willingly justify murderous societies and even lie to himself, if that meant finally ridding himself of the fairy tale.
So the only "justifiable reason" for you is dong what god tells you to? Can't I be perfectly reasonable doing something I like doing? Or doing something that is beneficial to society? Why must the only impetus be "to dowhat god wants?"
Civilization during the time of Christ encouraged slavery. He never spoke out against it. St. Paul even encouraged it backhandedly by saying "respect each other." Now we find the very notion of ownership of another person repugnant.
If morality did come from god, he would've condemned slavery right there. But he didn't. It took humanist thinkers (and some protestants) to do that.
Today everyone condemns slavery and it's not because the church told them to.
"Can't I be perfectly reasonable doing something I like doing?..."
Because when talking about logic, "I like doing something" (what I call argument from pleasure) is not a valid sole justification for doing something, firstly because pleasure is just a biochemical process, meaning we can be made to find pleasure in anything (see: sadomasochism, hedonism, homicidal mania, various forms of sexual depravities, etc.). As Christian philosophers would say, man's desires can become disordered. Just because you like being moral doesn't make morality justifiable, especially not under your world view where "conscience" is just another human invention.
Secondly, what's the point, really, of saying that you do things because you like doing them? I do what I like, it's just that what I like includes being orthodox. Why brag this truism as if "the tendency to do things one likes" is the ultimate manifestation of an evolved being? Even rats do what they like, you know.
"...Or doing something that is beneficial to society?"
What is your rationale for being so loyal to society? Why is someone like you logically superior to someone who wants to blow society to bits?
"Civilization during the time of Christ encouraged slavery. He never spoke out against it."
You seem to be confused as to what a slave actually is in the Jewish society of Christ's time. Maybe you've equated the unethical notion of "slaves as inhuman property" with the notion of a Jewish slave. Also, your claim that only Protestantism and atheist humanism condemned slavery is laughable at best. Here's something that might enlighten you.
Of course, if you really wanted to extend your argument further, you should have mentioned that Christianity has existed throughout the eras where unjust wars, adultery, nepotism, simony, misogyny, despotism AND slavery were seen as common social norms. You should have shown the various examples of Christians, popes, bishops, clergy, and even Saints falling for such social ills. Me, I'll be content to remember the flaws and sins of the first pope. The fact remains that none of these things contradict the doctrines of sin, repentance, and final judgment. On the contrary, the sins of mankind give evidence to the doctrine of Original Sin and need for Divine Judgement, for sinners cannot judge fellow sinners.
Can't you see? Pointing out the flaws of Christians does not help your case at all! You talk about the horrors of slavery in "unenlightened" times. Well then, what can your atheism do to bring justice to the slaves who are long dead? What can your humanism say against slave-owners who happily died wealthy because of crimes they did with impunity? Absolutely nothing! What can your atheism say to the other great historical crimes made by both atheists and believers? What can it do for the victims of the Holocaust, and the victims of Nagasaki? Absolutely nothing. And so you look the other way and say such things as this to make yourself feel comfortable:
"Now we find the very notion of ownership of another person repugnant...not because the Church told us to."
Why exactly do we find it repugnant? Try thinking this through: Where did the so-called humanists get their doctrine of "equality of all men"? Which institution first defended the dignity of *all* mankind, whatever the political environment may be, whatever race or caste they may belong to? Which institution continues to defend the dignity of all mankind, whether born or unborn, whether strong and useful or senile, fragile, or comatose?
Certainly not atheism.
On a less emotional note, I think it's important to point out that it is quite possible to live morally in a time where slave-ownership is the norm, because slavery as a political term is different from the notion of treating a person as a slave. Sadly, man has never needed the permission of his government to mistreat and abuse his fellow man. He still does it now, decades after his government ceased to permit him. You can pay your employees, honor their legal rights, and still essentially enslave them if you are clever and ruthless enough.
On the other hand, one can own what his society calls a slave without treating him as a slave. The fact that the slave does not get to have civil rights may be unfortunate, yet while civil rights are political inventions used by the state to protect its citizens (a term that did not apply to slaves), there will always be the objective moral obligation to respect the dignity of all human beings. That, at least, was what devout Christian slave-owners tried to do. The fact that many of them freed their slaves eventually is just further evidence that they did not see the slaves as any different from them, and are therefore free from guilt.
There is a moral difference between a person who sees slaves (or, in modern times, employees) as nothing but fancy commercial machinery, and a person who has a reasonable need for workers and who just so happened to be unable find any amongst his rich, fat and free neighbors.
In the end, the Church lived in a world that thought slavery was a necessity, but the Church did not have to change *any* of her doctrines to exist in a world without slavery, while her fickle enemies are always, always changing their beliefs, depending on their whims and fads. And I think that is the end of the matter.
Post a Comment