075 - A Matter of Life & Death: How Philosophy Underpins Politics, Law, Science, and Morality.

Is philosophy just mental masturbation?  Nothing but air?

Many today see no value in philosophy because there seems to be little agreement among philosophers on anything, and much of what they say seems to have little or no impact on one's life, or society in general.  Is this the case?

An examination of the major pillars upon which society stands - political systems, the law, science, and its moral base - shows just the opposite.  Holding each of these institutions up is a philosophical position.  In most cases, these are stances that have been analyzed for over two thousand years by the likes of Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Hobbes, Locke, Hume, and Hegel. 

As the 20th century demonstrated, the philosophy that nations choose to embrace can lead to the death of millions. And as citizens of the world, we do not have to blindly accept the doctrines that are handed us. We can, as Steve Job said, "change it, influence it, mold it."  

This episode shows the major impact philosophy has had on all aspects of life.  

Transcript

0:01

Hello. I'm Gregory Nowak. This is the cunning of Geist episode 75. Welcome back. The purpose of the podcast is to explore philosophy psychology and modern science. In an effort to examine current societal issues. So the status quo is not blindly accepted and listeners can realize their own power and potential to make productive change in the world. In this episode. I intend to show how philosophy underlies all the major areas of life. Including how we organize ourselves. The rules and laws. We live by our scientific worldview. And the morals that we hold up today. And this is an important topic because many still seem to consider philosophy, just a meaningless exercise. That is because many philosophical statements cannot be proven in scientific laboratory. And to some, it just seems that what philosophers do is just redefine certain concepts for the sake of redefining and nothing else. A brain game, if you will, with no real practical application, but hold on, not so fast. What I'm going to attempt to show in this episode is that far from being a meaningless exercise. Philosophical positions underlie each and every one of the major institutions of our life today as includes government. Our laws, science and morality itself. As you will see that is a lot to cover, but before we begin, let me address one point. I understand that I have a relatively selective audience here with the cunning of guys podcast. Now, some of, you know, this began is an outgrowth of my work as an administrator of the Hagle study group on Facebook. And I believe the success and the growth of that group, which we've grown from just a few hundred members initially to over 30,000 today. Has been largely due to taking a more approachable path to his philosophy. Hegel's philosophy. Putting his exceedingly complicated systems into everyday language that an average person with average intelligence could understand. And this, the audience has been built up far beyond just the academic community of philosophers. In general. It's been geared towards seekers for lack of a better term. And I've attempted to take that same tone, that same balance here on the cunning of guys podcast. And it has worked. The last time I checked this podcast is reached over 45,000 downloads. That's an average of over 600 downloads per episode. And when I say seekers, I mean, those that are curious about big questions in life. And PhDs can be included in this, in this category as well. Andy. My feeling is that many today are frustrated with what they've learned in school. Should say what. What they haven't learned in school. And what is out there in the media and they hunger for more, they feel there must be more to life. they're just getting by. Now I know not everyone is a seeker. There are those that are content and their knowledge base and a satisfied with how life is treating them. And these folks may not be interested in what I'm covering here and that's okay. But for those that are interested in ideas and what some of the greatest thinkers have set on important issues and how there is a commonality across many different silos of study and how these connections can be applied to one's life in terms of actionable steps, one can take, well, then this podcast is targeted to that segment of the population. And I recognize. That we're talking about a spectrum here. Not everybody falls into seeker or non seeker, a binary choice. There's a large percentage of folks who fall somewhere in between. And I believe that many, the people in between. Do have a spark of inquiry that can be ignited within them. Through exposure to new ways of thinking. And in particular, This can be accomplished with people that just haven't closed the doors of their mind. And they're open to some new truth and knowledge, or at least a different way to think about things. And I hope to reach these people as well. Now. I recently had some interesting conversations with friends and family members, a couple that, I would not consider them seekers, but. The feedback I got was Greg. We're so happy you're doing this podcast. We've tried to listen to it, but having difficulty understanding it, particularly because. Some of the words you use, we're unfamiliar with. There's a certain uncertainty is how the topics discussed, have any bearing on their own lives. Now I hear that. And I get that. And as I said, the podcast is not for everybody, but I think if somebody wants to come in with an open mind, I should be trying as hard as I can to reach that, that person. And so providing better definitions is an area that I'll definitely work on. In future episodes. So people don't become confused. also this whole issue of what practical benefit does the podcast offer? Is it just an intellectual exercise, like playing chess or doing Wordle? Uh, no. Uh, I realized this is also something I have to work on to, to accomplish in each and every, each and every episode. I need to ensure that there's practical, real world applications for what I'm talking about. So I'm recommitting myself to, uh, to make sure every episode addresses a topic. And that the terms that I use, are, are understandable. And there may be times when I have to refer back to a previous episode that I've covered in more detail. But I'll try to be as clear as I can. So. But that out of the way, let me get into the topic of this episode. In thinking about this new objective of mine, I started thinking about, well, what are some of the practical benefits of philosophy? W how was it used in the real world? And I was quickly surprised to see how it. Underlies, virtually every important area of society and many people around aware of this. Now I decided to take a top-down approach for this episode and look at some of our major institutions. And to see how philosophers had formed some of the thinking behind her, the greatest fields of how we organize ourselves collectively. And that includes politics, law, science, and morality. And. Quite literally, these. Systems are not just interesting talking points, but they're actually a matter of life and death for an individual. And I plan to go into this. For example. The political state can send or not send its citizens to war. It can establish laws and punishments and include the death penalty. the law can establish just what constitutes life in the first place and whether an abortion is legal or not, or when, when it can occur. Science has created weapons of mass destruction that weren't thinkable 200 years ago. And their use is decided by the political state. And our moral beliefs are often used in determining just what is a crime and what is appropriate punishment. And there there's so many other things that touch on. On life and death issues. So. What I want to do is go into each of these areas a bit. And it's important that people understand that. You just don't have to accept these positions. You're in a position where if you're alive in the world today, you can work to change or modify them as necessary to make the world a better place. And it's Steve jobs who founded apple computer wrote. And let me quote jobs here. This is Pretty interesting. Quote. When you grow up, you tend to get told that the world is the way it is. And it's your life to just live your life inside that world, not try to bash into the walls too much. Try to have a nice family life, have fun. Save a little money. But that's a very limited life. Life can be much broader once you discover one simple fact, and that is. Everything around you that you call life was made up by people that were no smarter than you. And you can change it. You can influence it. You can build your own things that other people can use. And the minute that you understand that you can poke life and something will pop out the other side that you can change it. You can mold it. That's maybe the most important thing is to shake off this erroneous notion that life is there and you're just going to live it. And it versus embrace it, change it, improve it. Make your mark upon it. I think that's very important. And however you learn that once you learn it, you want to change life and make it better.'cause it's kinda messed up in a lot of ways. Once you learn that they'll never be the same again. End quote. Now I take two. Takeaways from this. Number one. The so-called rules of society were made by people who are no smarter than you. I really believe that. Too many people discount themselves. And say, oh, they're smarter people than me and blah, blah, blah. That's not true. And as such, if you buy that first premise, you have every right to change and, and improve. The rules by which society organizes itself. And to participate in the discussion. It's not one way or the other obviously philosophy. There's a lot of debate. Uh, about what's the, what's the correct course, but you can participate in that debate and help move things along in the direction you think. We'll we'll we'll make things better. Now. Let's get into it. The first area is political philosophy. And, but this, I mean the, the age old discussion of how to best to. Arrange our collective life. That is the relation of the individual to society. Uh, politics became part of philosophy way back in the beginning in ancient Greece, Plato's Republic being the prime example, which reviews the various ways the state can organize itself. It's probably his most famous work. And politics has been a part of philosophy ever since. And most many leading philosophers have made substantial contributions to political thought, including Plato, Aristotle, Augustine Aquinas, Hobbes Locke, Hume, Hagle, and mill. Now we do emphasize Hagle here. And that should be, I should point out that Hegel's philosophy of right is considered a major work of political philosophy. And you can see here that that philosophy is just not an a feet game concerning the definition of concepts, but it involves decisions that provide an underpinning of how society should organize itself. And it has life and death consequences for its citizens and tremendous impact on, on individual rights. Now. I believe that there's a, If you take any political view, there's a philosophical position behind it. Now there may be many depending on, on, um, what the issue is, but let me give you an illustration. the role of the individual versus the collective state and what are the trade-offs there? Well in his philosophy of right. Hago saw this polarity of collectivism versus individualism. And he, he thought that, uh, collectivism was best expressed by Plato's Republic on the one hand. And individualism best expressed by Russo's individual freedom. On the other hand now, Plato in the Republic argued for the functioning of the collective state as being the only concern of how it is organized, ignoring the individual. And 18th century philosopher, genre, jock Russo. RO a lot of interesting works on freedom and he greatly influenced the age of enlightenment and the French revolution. Whether it's emphasis on individual Liberty. And many scholars have pointed to haggles and debtedness in fact to Russo is providing the concept of objective and subjective freedom was such a big part of his, uh, encyclopedia. Eh, and his philosophy of right. Subjective freedom is freedom to pursue your own personal needs and desire. And objective freedom is the social contract we create to live with others. Now. This trade-off between individual and collective has resulted in several recognized camps. First. There's traditional liberalism volt loop. Liberalism which stresses the rights of the individual with. This is basically brought about in the enlightenment. Secondly, a modern liberalism, whether it's increased emphasis towards social policies. Third is socialism, which in its purest form, communism means. Uh, central control and ownership of all production. And fourth is conservatism. Which takes a dim view on social engineering and wholescale reforms. Believing that human needs and wants don't change that much. And that less government involvement is usually the best approach. Now these different positions are, are good. I'd even today. And where one stands on an issue is an expression of a political philosophy. It's not just a meaningless word game. And to fully submit this, this point that political philosophy has life in this consequences. One. Need look no further than the impact of philosopher, Karl Marx. Communism, which took hold in 1917 with their Russian revolution. produced brutal communist regimes in the 20th century. including Russia later, the Soviet union, as well as in China, Cambodia and North Korea, Vietnam. And these county governments committed outright genocide and extra judicial executions and deaths and labor camps. And also through artificially created famines. Estimates. In terms of how many people were killed. Very w one. Uh, very thorough study, put it in 94 million people. Now. A lot. Depends on how you define, the cause of death. But all scholars agree that it is a minimum. Uh, some somewhere over 20 million and some saying may approach a hundred million or more. Now. It's very important to note here. These, this is communist governments killing their own people here. This is not a result of war with other countries. World war one or world war II. This is them killing their own people. Now. Karl Marx is often cited as one of the most influential people in all of human history, not just the most influential philosopher. And of course we know that he was influenced as a young man, greatly by Hagle. And he famously turned Hagle on his head. As mark said, with his dialectical materialism. Not dialectical materialism is the direct opposite of Hegel's dialectical idealism. And simply put, let me define this. Dialectical materialism believes that material circumstances, shape ideas. Where Haydel's dialectical idealism believes that ideas shape material consequences. Now one distinctive philosophical belief. These mass murders had was that the end justifies the means. If the end was just any means is acceptable and this would include murder. And now I know that some claim that the Soviet union and China, that's not pure common as well. However, the original leaders of the communist revolution believed in the. the ends justify the means, even if it meant murder. communist revolutionary Leon trust ski road. Quote a means can be justified only by its end. But at the end in turn. Needs to be justified and quote. So this means would include murder. And one just has to look what, what occurred in Russia and China the numbers speak for themselves now on a personal note. It's as I mentioned here, a couple of times I went to college in the late 1960s, early 1970s, when there was tremendous political upheaval in the air. And many were calling for outright revolution. Even the Beatles sang about it. And I had a few friends that were politically active on the far left side. And, they were very happy that our university just hired a well-known Marxist professor. Although I was not actively political, then these friends of mine were, so I was invited to a private off-campus small get together to meet and greet him in person when he arrived on campus. And I got to tell you, I was really shocked by what he said. He, he called for outright violent revolution. He called all police pigs and said it would be justified to kill any policemen or woman because they were upholding the laws of the state, which were corrupt and needed to be overthrown. And I'm not exaggerating one bit about murdering the police. I can not believe what my ears were hearing. I was in shock. This guy was aggressive. He was mean he was insulting anyone that was not enthusiastically bobbing their head up and down in agreement. I did not say anything, but I think he could see my dismay and he began to harass me personally. I don't recall exactly what he said, but it was something to do with, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. He began mocking me on the assumption that I had come from a bourgeois background. now there were just a handful of people there, so it was pretty intense. So I just got up and left. Without saying anything. Now I bring this up, because again, this is a firsthand accounts. This is not something I read about. And interestingly, this guy went on to have a strong professional career publishing, many articles and books on the benefits of market Marxism and how the Soviet union is morally superior to the United States. So. Philosophical ideas have power. And they can impact the lives and deaths literally of millions of people. Now let's move on to the second area. I want to discuss law. I was also very surprised to see how the philosophy of law. There's a philosophy underneath our legal system. And. W the biggest area is the issue of law and morality. And I'll, I'm going to cover morals, moral philosophy. Toward the end of the episode, but considering the law. Many people call natural law is the intersection of the two. And there's a history here. This is what I want to discuss first. Aristotle distinguished between natural justice and political justice. He claimed that natural justice was valid everywhere, but political justice just came from people's opinions. Now w w one of the first prominent philosophers did discuss natural on a major way, was Catholic theologian and philosopher. Thomas Aquinas. It was born in Italy and 1225 in his principle work. Some of the theological. It's considered the gold standard for Scholastic medieval Christian philosophy. And although, as I said, aspects of natural law could be seen in Aristotle as well as the Roman floss for Cicero. It was Aquinas who really laid the foundation for the concept. He identified four types of law. He turned a law, divine law, natural law and human law. The first eternal law refers to God's laws alone and the laws of creation and the universe itself. The second divine law refers to the Bible and God's interaction with human beings. The third natural law, which we're talking about refers to what people were instructed to do by God, through the light of reason. It was the reason implanted in people by God that allowed them to know what was right to do. And what was evil. And natural law, according to Aquinas, applied to all humankind and it is unchanging. The fourth type human law regard specific laws that are applied by a government to regulate society. And these are obviously subject to, to change given local circumstances. However, importantly, Aquinas firmly believed that humans were not bound by human laws if they went against natural law. So natural law always takes precedent over human law. Human law just to refinement. If you will tweaking the, of natural laws to make them, fit a particular size, uh, society at a particular point in time. Now he thought human law was necessary because people tended to have their own self interests in government is needed to establish the common good. Um, modern legal theory, which is primarily based on natural law, took shape in the enlightenment. And importantly was used to fight against the divine right of Kings and establish legal rights for the individual. And today the phrase natural laws become closely associated with the term natural rights. And this is a key component of the declaration of independence in the United States. And many other countries and organizations, including the United nations. And this was famously captured. This phrase was famously captured in the us declaration of independence. Uh, in which the second paragraph of that document states. We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. That among these are life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in quote. And natural law and natural rights are still cited today in cases argued before the Supreme court of the United States. And there is. One opposing view though, to natural law and natural. Right. And we talk about that. That's called legal positivism. And that view holds that laws should be a function of the social needs of the time. And they're not timeless, then they're not natural. it feels laws as needing adjustment, due to changing definitions of morality. For example, they used to be laws against homosexual behavior. Do declaimed morality reasons. And morality legal positivists note is often in the eye of the beholder, so they want more flexibility. and don't. And don't believe that these natural laws are, are, you know, carved in stone. Now the Supreme court of the United States took this positive. This view. Uh, early in the 20th century. And, interestingly scholars have taken, uh, different, points of view of this regarding Hagle. And, most seem to believe that he did advocate a natural law to, in an abstract sense, particularly regarding rationality and freewill. But he also believed that it had to be adapted to the specific laws of the state in a more positive position. So is sort of a compromise there. That's ablation, if you will. And one can easily see that the law society is stamps is going to have life and death consequences for the individuals living in the state. Uh, such as the death penalty and draft into military service. So ask yourself. Do you believe in natural law or legal positivism or some combination is handling appears to have taken. And this question is very relevant today because how one sees is trade-off can directly impact how one views the us constitution. And. And today there are three ways to look at it. First, there are the originalists that holds it. The founders intended. What they meant at the time it was put together and that's what we should base it on what they intended at the time. The next are the textualists. And they believe that we should put more meaning on the thought behind what was originally said and how. That meaning would be applied and in today's circumstances. And the third is what's called living constitutionalist, who contend that the constitution should be periodically updated like a living document based on what society needs today. And all three elements are, are currently alive and well. Now the sixties and seventies swing toward living constitutionalism. Then the pendulum swung in the 1980s saw a re-emergence of textualism and originalism. So we've seen that philosophers were the ones who set down the principles underlining. Judicial system and the debates surrounding these continued today. Now onto the third area science. Regular listeners know that I've covered the philosophy behind science and many times in the podcast, particularly in episode 62 on Thomas Kuhn's work, the structure of scientific revolutions. And this book, Coon revolutionized how scientists view their own profession. In it, he argued clearly that science does not show steady progress in knowledge, but clings to one specific paradigm as he called it, coined the phrase until anomalies are found and events of the old paradigm is thrown out and the new one adopted. And as I've said, many times, I believe we're currently living under a paradigm, a scientific paradigm that all things have a material basis. Meaning they can be reduced. Protons, neutrons, electrons, subatomic particles. And that the movement of these material objects at bay laws of nature, which can be discovered. And those are real world out there. I'm unaffected by us at all. Now over the last hundred years though, with quantum physics, certain anomalies. Been discovered with this paradigm. In short, the laws of the micro world of quantum physics, subatomic particles are different than the laws of the macro world. We see about them and they don't, we can't get them to mesh. Particularly in quantum mechanics, the act of observing the micro world and measuring it seems to play a role in its actual manifestation. In other words, the observer or the measure can not be separated. From the observed or the measured. And this was resulted in a big question, mark currently in science and it was, my scientists are still searching for the underlying theory that will explain the micro and the macro and one understanding. Now. How does. Science relate to the issue of life and death. Well, let's take a look at J Robert Oppenheimer, the inventor of the tonic bomber, the guy that led the team that created the atomic bomb. Clearly, this is one of the greatest scientific most consequential, scientific inventions ever. And that's because it has a potential to destroy all of humanity in a matter of minutes. Now, what was the philosophical position that justified the scientists in pursuing the development of the atomic bomb? It's clear from all available evidence that this, that the decision to pursue the bomb was a direct result of the situation. The us found itself during world war two. The Manhattan project as it's been called. Began after. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt received the letter from Albert Einstein in 1939, outlining how such a bomb could be made. And importantly that he believed the German government was working on such a bomb. And if they got it, it would be curtains. So heres the president to do likewise to start a project. And Roosevelt did. And. As we all know it became a weapon worse than anything that came before or anything that could be mentioned before. And science was responsible. Now I've not seen the new Christopher Nolan movie Oppenheimer here. It's really good. But I have been able to read up on, on his changing views about his, his, his project here. Initially Oppenheimer was pleased and it had been made and even proclaim that his only regret was that it wasn't developed earlier to be used against Germany. And on observation of the one test that they did before it was used on Japan. He quoted a passage from the Hindu. Bhagavad Gita. He's he, he claimed. Quote, if the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the mighty one. I am become death, the shatter of worlds and quote. Now. After the second use of the bomb and against Japan, Oppenheimer BNDF Cirrus regrets, and even went to a meeting after that with president Harry Truman at the time and expressed his feelings. He stated quote, Mr. President, I feel I have blood on my hands. And quote, and he later stated quote in some sort of crude sense, which no vulgarity, no humor, no overstatements can quite extinguish. The physicists have known sin, and this is a knowledge which they cannot lose. And. So the inventor of the Tomic bomb saw this as a sin. Now of course, hindsight is always 2020. and there are a few points worth mentioning. Your first Germany was thoroughly defeated without the use of the atomic bomb. And also there's a persuasive case to be made that Japan was on the verge of surrendering. When the atomic bombs were dropped. And that it was actually the results of the massive firebombing that both proceeded the, a bomb droppings. And continued after it. Uh, that caused the emperor of Japan to surrender after witnessing firsthand, the destruction of the firebombing, not the destruction of, caused by the atomic bombs. This is vividly accounted for in the recent book. The bomber mafia by Malcolm Gladwell. Now. Historians will continue to sort this out. But in the world we live today with under the threat of nuclear war, this was brought about through scientific means, which underscores the sciences, but a tool and is up to the ones that use the tool to make the correct decisions. And this is where philosophy comes in. Now, this brings me to the last section of the talk moral philosophy. In matters of life and death. And this is a huge topic with many subcategories. I'm just going to touch on. Few of the biggest ones. that touch on life and death. These include questions surrounding abortion, and whether it should be allowed up to just before birth or to be restricted when the baby. before the baby can live outside the womb on its own or outlawed entirely. another issue is euthanasia. assisted suicide is now legal in some countries and in some states in America. And just, what are the justified conditions for such an act? Well, that's a matter of, moral judgment. Uh, the, the moral justification for the death penalty. Is another one. And environmentalist who deal with questions regarding just what are our responsibilities to future generations regarding our current carbon emissions that can lead to increase global warming. Which can bring about death through. Increased natural disasters. That's an issue as well. So there, there are many, many moral issues. We have to deal with it in all these areas. And, and again, my point here is not to. To argue them, but just to say that, that there. That they're there. And, and we need to think about these things and fight for the side that we believe in. And provide reason to, you know, to bring to these arguments. So to summarize. I've attempted to show here that philosophy is not just a part of the game. It's not just contemplating. One's enable. I hope to have shown the philosophy, philosophical positions, underlying important life and death issues in all aspects of life, including political, legal, scientific, and moral. And also that is up to all of us, not just to accept the status score, but to use our efforts, to actively support whatever position we take in these questions to make a difference. As Steve jobs said. So that's a wrap for this episode. Once again, thanks so much for listening to the cunning of Geist podcast. And just one more thing I would like to bring up. For the first few years of doing this podcast, I was producing them every other week. Every two weeks. And then after a couple of years, they were coming out more like every three weeks and recently. It's been about every four weeks. Now this is my 75th episode. So I've covered a lot of ground, not only Hagle, but we've gotten in psychology, union psychology, Marshall. McCluen so many other people. And. My feeling is I only want to do a new episode when I have something to say, And I don't want to just get in front of the microphone and babble every two weeks. So that's my philosophy in doing these podcasts. And so the timing of the episodes will continue to be fluid and not on a fixed schedule. Now one thing's important. I'm certainly posting much more content almost daily on the podcast, Facebook page and cutting of Geist. So please check that out. And I will be supplying references for this episode on that page in a few days. So be sure to go there, visit it like it, follow it and engage in conversation there. Please provide your comments. So we can talk things over. I really value your input. And by the way, the input I've gotten from listeners has been extremely helpful in producing these episodes. I'm also on Twitter. And LinkedIn. And as I always say, please be sure to share links to this episode on your own social media and tell your like-minded friends about the podcast working together. We can continue to build the audience and see the ideas we share here. Grow. So for now, let me sign off by saying I'm Gregory Nowak. This is the cunning of guys podcast. CNX time.