Hard Atheism and the Ethics of Desire: An Alternative to Morality

209 Pages·2016·1.61 MB·English

by  Joel Marks (auth.)

Hard Atheism and the Ethics
of Desire
Joel Marks
Hard Atheism
and the Ethics
of Desire
An Alternative to Morality
JoelMarks
UniversityofNewHaven
WestHaven,Connecticut,USA
ISBN978-3-319-43798-9 ISBN978-3-319-43799-6(eBook)
DOI10.1007/978-3-319-43799-6
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2016949747
©TheEditor(s)(ifapplicable)andTheAuthor(s)2016
Thisbookwasadvertisedwithacopyrightholderinthenameofthepublisherinerror,whereasthe
authorholdsthecopyright.
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsaresolelyandexclusivelylicensedbythePublisher,whether
thewholeorpartofthematerialisconcerned,specificallytherightsoftranslation,reprint-ing,reuseof
illustrations,recitation,broadcasting,reproductiononmicrofilmsorinanyotherphysi-calway,and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by
similarordissimilarmethodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped.
Theuseofgeneraldescriptivenames,registerednames,trademarks,servicemarks,etc.inthispublica-
tiondoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfromthe
relevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
Thepublisher,theauthorsandtheeditorsaresafetoassumethattheadviceandinformationinthis
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authorsortheeditorsgiveawarranty,expressorimplied,withrespecttothematerialcontainedherein
orforanyerrorsoromissionsthatmayhavebeenmade.
Coverimage©EllenMcKnight/AlamyStockPhoto
Printedonacid-freepaper
ThisPalgraveMacmillanimprintispublishedbySpringerNature
TheregisteredcompanyisSpringerInternationalPublishingAG
Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:Gewerbestrasse11,6330Cham,Switzerland
Preface
Otherpeoplecanseemsomysterious,sostrange,sostubborn,sowrong-
headed. Why must they mess things up? Why must they complicate
’ ’
everything? Why cant they see the error of their ways? Dont they
understand that they are just making trouble for themselves as well as
for everybody else? Their own lives could be so much easier, and
happier.Whyallthisunnecessarybusy-ness?Etceteraetceteraetcetera.
Themoststartlingrevelationoflifeisthatallofthesequestionsapplyto
oneself as well. Indeed, they manifest in the very asking of these ques-
“
tions about other people, for it is surely the most unnecessary busy-
”
ness of all to be worrying about such things.
fi
Buddhismprovidedmewiththe rstliberationfromthatworrying.I
now accept people as they are. Perhaps I still have not yet learned to
accept myself as I am, but at least I know that is the goal. Buddhism
taught me that we are all comprised of desires. We are comprised of
other things too, such as beliefs; for example, there are people who
– “ ” –
believe that evolution or evilution, as they think of it is a delusion
and the work of the devil. I myself think it is those people who are
deluded. But what turns this into a problem is that we all care so much
about the issue. And the heart of this caring is some desire or other,
’
whetheritbetheanti-evolutionistsdesperateclingingtoagoodGodin
heavenwhowillforgiveusalloursinsandmaketheroughwayssmooth
and reunite us with our departed loved ones and ensure that justice
v
vi Preface
’
prevails forever and ever, or the evolutionists gut-level revulsion to
aggressive and arrogant benightedness.
’ ’
When we experience other peoples or one anothers beliefs and
ff ff
desires as not only di erent from our own but also insu erably intran-
sigent, the result is endless and escalating strife.1 This is overdetermined
becausebothourperceptionandbehaviorreinforcetheoriginalstrength
of our respective desires; the strength of my desire causes me to see
’
another persons action or utterance as intolerable, and the actions I am
fl ’
thereby motivated to take further in ame the other persons resistance
with resentment, and my own resistance with the need to justify what I
have done. This is a law of nature, which like the universal sway that
gravity holds over the apple falling from the tree in the backyard all the
way to the planets speeding in their courses, applies from the domestic
setting of constant bickering all the way to the worldsetting of constant
bloodletting.
I for one desire that the bickering and the bloodletting stop. (Not
everyone does, but I would like to think that most do.) Fortunately,
therefore, the desire basis of our contending implies two further things
whose recognition can ameliorate it. One is that we are all bound to be
ff
di erent,sincedesiresarisefromcountlesssourcesthatvaryfromperson
toperson(fromnationtonationanderatoeraandmomenttomoment,
etc.). The other is that we are not likely to change, since desires are
natural, causal, and probably material phenomena that become
entrenched through habit and circumstances and may sometimes even
“ ”
be hard-wired. To realize these things is liberating, therefore, since
striving to alter what is inevitable and unalterable is pointless.
Here is a much-used analogy, although usually in the context of
knowledge rather than desire.2 The human situation is like a group of
prisonerschainedtoallthewallsofadarkdungeonandallstaringatthe
single piece of furniture in the middle: a table. One prisoner will just
1When,outforawalk,Iseesomeonechastisingtheirdogforbeingfractious,IfeelIamobserving
theessenceofallhumancontention.
2Althoughitpresumesthedesiretoknow,whichAristotleattributestoouressentialnature.(See
theopeninglineofhisMetaphysics.)
Preface vii
make out an object with an oblong shape spread out before him.
Another will hazily discern a narrow surface disappearing into the
distance. Yet another will see only a thick straight edge. A fourth
fi ’
observes a rectangle, a fth a parallelogram. And lets not forget the rat
in the room, who will look up from underneath and see a huge canopy
overhead. And so on for all the denizens.
Aswithperception,sowithdesire:Eachofusisfastenedtoapointof
ff
viewandhenceeachdesiressomethingdi erent.Someofusmayrealize
or suspect that our desires are based on an incomplete picture, and
perhaps we can experience some sense of the common reality. But
none of us can grasp that total reality because of the essential limitation
of our perspective, whether due to circumstances (immovable location
and low illumination) or our very nature (human being versus rodent).
Liberationconsistsnotinreleasefromourshacklesorescapefromthe
prison (for I am certainly not preaching either mystical revelation or
religioussalvation)butinrefrainingfromendlesssquabblingwithevery-
one else as to which perspective is the right one. The fundamental error
of life and cause of grief in the world is to assume that the way one sees
things is the way things are.3 This egotism spreads out from the indivi-
dual to friends, groups, cultures and traditions, nations and religions,
who value and appreciate the same things we do. For in this sharing is
the preservation and enhancement of the faux-objectivity of what we
value in our individual subjectivity. The self is thereby secured by
’
securing the world. It is the egos striving to sustain itself, therefore,
that makes bigots and proselytizers of us all. And therefore as well, less
“ ”
anger (and less guilt ) and more fruitfulness is likely to be attained by
“ ” ’
recognizing the perspectival or relative nature of everyones point of
view and engaging in a cooperative venture to piece together a larger
truth or accommodation. It suggests a middle way, between the despair
of pointless strife and the ideal of complete agreement.
Note, then, that this realization does not counsel quietism. After all, it
’
doesnotremoveonesowndesires,whetheritisthedesiresimplytoknow
(the shape of the table), or the more urgent one with which I began this
3IowethisessentialinsighttomylatefriendandcolleagueDavidMorris.
viii Preface
’ ’
discourse:thedesirethatpeoplechange.HitlersvictimsandISISsvictims
nevercease(d)todesirethattheirpersecutorsstopwantingtoexterminate
them; and I will not cease to wish and want those persecutions never to
havehappenedandnottobehappening.Thereforeeventhewisdomthat
peopledonotchangedoesnotpreventourdesiringthattheydo,since,its
’
being true, ones desire that people change also remains intact.
ThefactofourdesirenaturesuggestsanethicsthatIhaveaccordingly
“ ”
dubbed desirism. Formulated as a maxim, it is this: Figure out, by
fi
rational inquiry, what you want, and then gure out how to get it,
consistentlywithyourrationallyvetteddesires.Howdoesthishelpwith
the perceived stupidity and cussedness of other people (and oneself and
“ ” ’ ff
even the world )? It helps by directing ones e orts to what can
’
realistically be accomplished in the furtherance of ones deepest desires.
“ ”
Moreover, I see this attitude as working out well (as I conceive well )
ff
for society as a whole, because it will have a moderating e ect on both
ends and means, thereby reducing strife. I dare to imagine that it might
even preclude the existence of Hitlers and ISISes. Thus I have really
given two responses to the objection that desirism would leave us help-
less against such people: Resistance to Hitlers would continue to exist
insofar as Hitlers existed, but maybe there would be no more Hitlers.
AnotherwaytosaythisisthatdesirismisnotBuddhism,eventhough
it has been inspired by Buddhism; or at least it is not Buddhism as
interpreted at face value. For Buddhism is commonly understood to
advise the elimination of desire (and ultimately the illusion of desirer or
self), since it revealed that desire is the source of our woes. But this
would seem as well to strip us of the possibility of happiness (as the
satisfaction of desire) and action (as motivated by desire). That cannot
be right, since genuine Buddhists seem perfectly capable of both enjoy-
ment and resolve.4 So “desire” must have a special meaning in this
’
context, such that desires elimination is compatible with both satisfac-
fi
tionandmotivation.Forexample,itmightbeshorthandforsel shdesire
4Buddhistthinkershaveofferednondesire-basedaccountsoftheenlightenedperson’sfeelingsand
actions,butthepresentstudydoesnottakeitsinspirationtherefrom.PerhapsthatisbecauseIam
not enlightened. At any rate I do not wish to defend anethics I cannot vouch forin my own
experience.Ihopethisisabenignadhominemism.
Preface ix
or else disproportionate desire, leaving other desires intact. Just so, desir-
ism is intended to modify our desires, but not necessarily eliminate
fi
them; and this modi cation, induced by rational inquiry, could well
be expected to result in some desires (such as compassion) increasing in
strength, or even coming into being, and not only some desires (such as
fi
sel shness) moderating or going out of existence. It would depend on
the desire and on the situation.
Dedication and Acknowledgments
A host of good friends and colleagues have stimulated and guided my
thinking and writing, for this book as for all previous. But one of this
steadfast crew has really been put through his paces this time, namely,
Mitchell Silver. He has been exceedingly responsive and generous with
his precious time. In fact we have been writing (opposed? complemen-
tary?)booksintandem.Mycritiqueofmoralityhasbeenaconstantspur
’
to (thorn in the sideof?) Mitchells defense of morality, and likewisefor
his critique of my critique. The very reason this book came into being
’
was my felt need to address Mitchells many objections to my previous
fi ’
work. And yet we are also so simpatico that we can nish each others
sentences (indeed, we start them); for me there would be no such thing
asphilosophicaldialoguewithoutMitchellasmyinterlocutor.Therefore
fi
Icannothelpbutdedicatethisbooktohim.BetterSilverdissatis edthan
fi
a fool satis ed. With deepest thanks, Mitchell. May our dialogue con-
fi
tinue inde nitely.
Yet neither would this book have come into being without the
support of Richard Garner. No fool he either, even though he shares
’
none of Silvers reservations about amoralism and all of my enthusiasm
for it. Richard is the closest to a completely congenial thinker on these
matters that I know of, even though, of course, we do have our
ff
di erences of detail. I would feel very alone in the philosophical world
’
without Richards existence. But it is in a practical way that he has
xi