Just a K . id

Thank you to Matt for the words of encouragement and inspiration regarding this blog, your words have motivated me to knock the dust off of K. with some fresh material.

For those familiar with this blog, my original intention was for it to be a “survey” of my thoughts regarding current events, matters of social justice, and issues of political, spiritual, and personal import – I believe this particular entry is a fluid cross-section of all these streams of thought. In conjunction with this entry I’ve edited the Who is K. section to more accurately reflect my ideological location (as evidenced by this post) at this point in my life.

That being said…

I’ve always been deeply intrigued by the words people use to explain and define themselves. For example, one person might express their opposition to the war in Iraq by stating, “the U.S. was not attacked or provoked by Iraq, there was no “real and certain danger” and therefore the war in Iraq is an unjust war that should be brought to a swift and sustainable conclusion”, while another opines, “I am a pacifist, therefore I oppose and call for an immediate end to all works of war; in Iraq, Afghanistan, Columbia, and everywhere else in the world. I advocate non-violent solutions in all situations of conflict.”

Although sharing similar ends, each interlocutor arrives at his or her position via much different avenues of language. While both advocate for an end to the war in Iraq, the former does so in a utilitarian way, drawing upon the language of Just War Theory to conclude that the “usefulness” of the war is far outweighed by the suffering and damage caused by it. For the utilitarian,

“the morally right course of action in any situation is the one that produces the greatest balance of benefits over harms for everyone affected. So long as a course of action produces maximum benefits for everyone, utilitarianism does not care whether the benefits are produced by lies, manipulation, or coercion.”

This definition of utilitarian ethics comes from the aptly titled article, Calculating Consequences: The Utilitarian Approach to Ethics.

Here are some questions I’ve been wrestling with in response to this article and other writings on utilitarian ethics.

In so far as human beings balance the benefits and harms of their actions before they act, “acting as consequence calculators”, are humans nothing more than complex machines (e.g. calculators) bound to select the most efficacious ends, regardless of the means? At what level is our behavior determined by our internal circuitry (nature/essence) and at what level is it our programming (nurture/education)? Do the labels that we use to define ourselves confine us, and dictate patterns of behavior and thought that become narrow, predictable, mechanistic? When we identify ourselves with a group, (e.g. Orthodox Christians, Republicans, Anarchists, Environmentalists, Quakers), how much do we then conform our thoughts and behaviors to reflect the prominent values of the group to which we identify? How much do the labels/signposts that we use to signal to others, “this is who I am, this is how I am defined”, determine our actions? Can human beings develop any new sense of themselves, or re-imagine their identity, underneath the shade of these labels? Would we all be better off if we abandoned the labels that we use to define ourselves?

Returning again to our two hypothetical interlocutors, is wisdom found in the rational calculation of the utilitarian, or the unwavering principles of the pacifist? Is it possible to have both, or does one way of thinking compromise the other?

In my opinion, there is a most delicate balance that we must find between the independent calculation and reasoning behind our beliefs and actions, and our identification with and submission to established patterns of thought and behavior. So with caution, I’ve decided to “strike-through” the labels I’ve used to define myself on this blog, (Who is K.). However not in an attempt to abandon these labels entirely, but in recognition of the fact the labels themselves and my embodiment of them are both deeply flawed.

Maybe this is why the wisest sages have counseled their students to “become like children”. Children don’t really spend too much time “calculating their actions” and they aren’t that concerned with labels and identifying with groups. Maybe we would all be better off if we took the following advice more seriously.

“Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” – Jesus

“Become as a little child once more” – Lao Tzu