I've been chatting online with a rather smart individual who has been wanting to understand humanism and is asking me Socratic questions to try and understand it better. The problem, he keeps posing things as false dichotomies.
A dichotomy - is "a division or contrast between two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different." According to wikipedia - A false dilemma, also referred to as false dichotomy or false binary, is an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available. The source of the fallacy lies not in an invalid form of inference but in a false premise. This premise has the form of a disjunctive claim: it asserts that one among a number of alternatives must be true. This disjunction is problematic because it oversimplifies the choice by excluding viable alternatives, presenting the viewer with only two absolute choices when in fact, there could be many.
An example of this when discussing humanism might be asserting that either communalism or individualism is the key to understanding Humanism. That's a false choice. We can do both. Neither. Something else entirely.
Part of free thinking as a practice is to free your mind to think of other choices. That is how we creatively get out of problems and solve them.
Often, the choice is both and. It's not either or, its both and. In the example above, Humanism as a philosophy is concerned about both the individual and the community in which the individual lives. Humans are autonomous individuals embedded in society. We are dependent on society for our well being. To create flourishing, requires balancing the needs of the individuals within the community with the needs of the community itself. Where that balance best lies is a matter of vigorous debate. And it's a debate totally worth having.
Why do I balk at false dichotomies? They cut off the debate. They assert it must be either one or the other and any choice made will be simple, but wrong. I don't know what the right and best answer is. We may need to experiment, but what I do know is that choosing one extreme or the other will probably lead to unnecessary suffering and that's unacceptable.
Situational Ethics
And, like all things, the idea that all dichotomies are false is itself false. Sometimes, we have enough experience to know something is just wrong and harmful and no longer need to entertain it. Trickle down economics is one such thing. Nationalism is another. Supremacy of any kind is another. We don't have to weigh the good and bad and figure out how to integrate any form of supremacy into our solution. Doing so - even a little bit will cause more harm than good and we know this through experience.
So - looking for other answers that integrate both extremes is often a good strategy - but sometimes it's an insanely bad strategy which is why the situation and the specifics matter. If you try to integrate something that is demonstrably false, you will have problems.
Nuanced
Which is why nuanced thinking is good thinking. To know whether you should try to integrate or not - you first need to think of the likely pros and cons. And we use humanist ethics to help us think of the pros and cons. Does the solution help or hurt humans in general and in specific cases.
Nationalism and supremacy may help certain individuals but they actively and aggressively harm many others to do so - so it's rejected.
Compare that with a discussion on where to find the right balance between community and individual. There are benefits and problems with both approaches. And it's possible to discuss how to find balance between the 2. Every nation and culture you look at finds the balance point in different places. There is no right answer to the question of how to balance individual rights vs community responsibility.
There is definitely a wrong answer though. In places that are out of balance - where they go to an extreme - either extreme individualism or extreme communalism - suffering is always the result. Always.
Nationalism is problematic because it's an extreme form of communalism. Supremacy is problematic because it marries extreme individualism with extreme communalism. These view points are extremist because they are predicated on a false either or scenario. Either you dominate or are dominated. A humanist knows those aren't our only 2 options.
Conclusion.
The questions this new contact is asking are interesting and thought provoking but also annoying because everything is posed in the form of a false dichotomy so I'm endlessly saying - it's not either or. Environmentalism? It's not - we do nothing or we go to an environmental extreme. We can transition and use our intelligence to solve our problems, but only if we don't shut off debate by insisting we either do nothing or we make things worse, which is how the right shuts off debate on climate. Heck - I'm in Florida - we aren't even legally allowed to discuss climate change. The words are banned in all government documents. It's silly and harmful.
Don't fall into a false dichotomy trap. Recognize when yo are being given false choices.
No comments:
Post a Comment