Here a few reflections on the recent Critical Dialogue at
Glendale Community College entitled “Is the West the Best?” The first three speakers provided
perspectives on the question itself and then the last two speakers took
differing sides on how to answer the specific question.
Pini Ben-Or: Values, Conflicts of Values, and Higher
Values
I found Mr. Ben-Or to be thoughtful
in his perspective. He began by
analyzing what the question might mean.
What is meant by “West” and what do we mean by the term “best?” As a good philosopher is prone to do he
trimmed the question down a bit.
Surely we don’t mean to say that everything Western is better in every
way! Mr. Ben-Or then moved on to
discuss the notion of Western values and how they function as being the best
candidate for what is at issue. He
also discussed the reality that values are ranked and that there can be a
conflict of values. He argued that
it is more important to make reflective decisions rather than right
decisions. He furthered argued
that a better question than “Is the West the best?” is: “How do we make the
West and the world better?” I
grant that may be an important question—perhaps a “better” question—but the
original question is still important.
Mr. Ben-Or ended with a two points of evidence pointing to the
objectivity of values. First,
there is a convergence between utility and principle. Here he mentioned the issues of torture and capital
punishment. Torture is often seen
by many to be principally wrong.
Furthermore, many are also seeing that the utilitarian function of
torture is not very good. This
convergence, according to Mr. Ben-Or, serves to evidence the objectivity of
values. The second piece of
evidence was the fact of moral progress.
It is recognized that this moral progress is not very smooth but,
nevertheless, there is moral progress on various issues throughout history.
John Coughlin: Best West is Just Thumping a Chest: Relativism and Standards of Objectivity in History
John Coughlin: Best West is Just Thumping a Chest: Relativism and Standards of Objectivity in History
Whereas Mr. Ben-Or was deliberate
and nuanced in his presentation Mr. Coughlin came out swinging with an
aggressive and fast-paced style of presentation. He began by calling the question “meaningless” and began to mention
a quick taxonomy of relativism—descriptivist relativism, meta-ethical
relativism, and normative relativism.
He argued that any perceived objective values are merely externalized
values of inner subjectivity which we then turn around and impose on ourselves
and others. Although he began with
this brief philosophical argument the bulk of his presentation was taken up
with a historical list of failings of American culture and politics. This makes sense in that Mr. Coughlin
is a historian. His argument
seemed to be that even if there are objective values the West (i.e., America)
has so badly failed to live up to these values that the notion that the West is
best fails. During the interaction
period Mr. Coughlin continued this line of thinking. He referred to America as one massive wealth transfer
program that generates resources for the hegemony. I was not impressed with Mr. Coughlin’s arguments for
relativism and he came across as angry.
Peter Lupu: Enlightenment, Autonomy, and the Open
Society
Dr. Lupu’s presentation was my
favorite. He began by offering
three points:
(1) Objectivity: The are objective
values in the realm of the true, good, and beautiful.
(2) Fallibilism: We are not
omniscient and what we think we know is vulnerable to refutation.
(3) Knowledge: We believe that we
know some things.
Dr. Lupu mentioned that two types
of groups reject (2) above: dogmaticians and revolutionary idealists. The one holds to tradition infallibly
whereas the other is willing to throw away all tradition. Dr. Lupu argued that there is a method
that accepts all three premises above—Critical Rationalism as developed by Karl
Popper. Dr. Lupu defined critical
scrutiny as the ability to adjust our tradition in light of new problems. This objective method gets one closer
to truth. This objective method
requires an “open society” that has institutions that promote critical scrutiny
at all levels. The more open the
society the more open it is to critical scrutiny at all levels. Next, Dr. Lupu turned to a brief
argument against relativism. He
noted that differences of opinion do not logically entail the conclusion that
there are no objective standards.
Relativists, on the other hand, reduce disagreements to differences
which are neither true or false.
These differences, according to the relativistic philosophy, are simply
due to one’s background formation.
This entails that relativism reduces to some form of biological or
physical determinism. Dr. Lupu
noted that if we cannot ask if something is true or false then all we have are
processes. Thinking is reduced to
the same epistemic level as digestion.
Nicholas Damask: The West Is the Best: Some Persuasive Data
Dr. Damask first defined “best” as
that which enabled human beings to flourish. Starting with this definition he then went on to use the
following objective metrics by which to measure the best nations:
a)
life expectancy
b)
nutrition
c)
income
d)
maternity death rates
e)
infant death rates
f)
access to water and electricity
g)
immigration patterns
In light of these criteria Dr. Damask
argued that the West is the best at fulfilling human flourishing. He added that the competition is “not
even close” when measured by his criteria.
Jean Saint-Amour:
Eastern and Indigenous Worldviews
Dr. Saint-Amour defended a
Buddhist/native American worldview in her presentation. She argued that progress shouldn’t be
measured by physical realities but, rather, by how we live and relate to each
other. She denounced the soul/body
dichotomy and opted for a worldview of radical monism in which she announced
that “all is one.” In light of
this she urged that everything should be treated with respect. She mentioned, as an example, the
podium before her and the trees outside.
Dr. Saint-Amour stated that we need to get in “the flow” of
existence. She urged upon the
listeners the values of compassion and harmony. She sees the West as greedy and pursuing unsupportable
lifestyles. An Eastern worldview
would, according to Dr. Saint-Amour, provide a different lifestyle with
superior values.
I found Dr. Saint-Amour’s
presentation to be the most problematic.
During the question-answer period I asked her about a seeming
contradiction at the heart of her presentation. My question was something like the following:
“I noticed a self-contradiction in
your presentation. You affirm a
radical monism is which “all in one” and yet in the rest of your presentation
you presuppose a number of dualities.
For example, you mention differences between men and women. You spoke of the search for truth which
presupposes the duality of truth and falsity. You spoke of some misunderstanding the meaning of Buddha but
meaning presupposes the dualities of
meaning and non-meaning as well as truth and falsity. You spoke of the values of compassion and harmony which
presupposes the duality of good and evil or, at least, good and less-good. It doesn’t seem that radical monism can
provide the preconditions for the values you want to affirm.”
In her answer Dr. Saint-Amour spoke
of how differing worldviews have to use language in different ways to
communicate. She gave examples of
how Western missionaries mistakenly imported their notions of deity into
certain Native American words for transcendent beings. When she asked if this helped in
answering my concerns I had to answer in the negative. I responded that I understand the
differences between languages and how words can have differing meanings. My concern was not about semantics but
about self-contradiction. If I
were to use philosophy as a means to get at truth then one of first worldviews
that I would reject should her viewpoint since at the heart of it there is a
major contraction between radical monism and the values she wants to affirm.
Overall, this Critical Dialogue was a great experience. It is wonderful to see important ideas being
discussed in a civil and rational manner.
This kind of dialogue can only be a good thing for the collegiate
community and for the larger community around Glendale Community College.
