Morality, Subjectivity, and GMO's
I recently engaged in a Twitter conversation with Alex Williams (My Wax Museum) about the idea of natural selection and evolution being ever present even as we “play god” with life. As we tweeted I had mentioned that I have the arguments for both in my mind but haven’t decided where I draw the line. He had said it’s not uncommon for people to hold conflicting beliefs.
I had two conflicting beliefs about this - hah - on one hand, how can one have two conflicting beliefs about moralistic arguments? On the other hand, I know what he said was true, as I find myself in that position the more I learn about the world.
I understand very compelling arguments about abortion, economics, warfare, and etc. that I don’t believe in. My morality could be questioned about the beliefs I hold due to logistics , and I wouldn’t have much of a response outside of my morality. My logistics could be questioned morally, and the best response I would have is still a logistical argument, especially if I disagree with the moral argument at a level so deep that I can not verbalize it.
Is this unethical? Is it fair? Am I a monster because of these contradictions?
All unfair questions, with variable answers in a postmodern world. One of the fun things about this venture has been finding explanations for viewpoints that on the surface made no sense to me. It’s been enlightening seeing the processes around common beliefs and being able to go after them. I also have found that there is no problem with asking questions during discussion. People, when defending their beliefs, don’t allow for the possibility that they don’t know something. Imagine if in a presidential debate the candidates talked about why they believed what they believed, instead of focusing on two facets of the other sides argument without room for elaboration.
“Trickle down economics favors the rich!”
“No uterus, no opinion.”
“Build the wall!”
“What I do with my body is none of your business.”
“God condemns you!”
“I will lower taxes on the middle class.”
“We must cut military spending!”
All of these statements accomplished the same thing: nothing.
Ironically we can apply postmodern belief structures to this problem, if we took the time to flesh out the WHY instead of the WHAT, it may be easier finding the best act to DO.
Here’s the catch, the more you know, the less you can do. The more you know, the more you know that any solution is unfair to somebody. If you goal is to avoid oppression hierarchies, to achieve true equality as an egalitarian, than you know that no solution has only positive effects on some people groups.
So does he who knows act morally? Is he able to ever act morally?
The issue with that question is that it suggests that he who doesn’t know can act morally. It suggests virtue in ignorance. The fascist is ignorant to freedom. The fundamentalist is ignorant to new ideas. The revolutionary is ignorant towards wisdom.
Who is he who knows?