A key question regarding the philosophy of law is, “what is the purpose of laws?” Three primary  historical responses to this question are Aristotle’s Virtue Jurisprudence, Immanuel Kant’s Deontoligical Jurisprudence, and Jeremy Bentham’s Utilitarianism. Elaborating respectively, Aristotle asserted that the purpose of laws is to encourage the development of virtuous character. Close to this idea, Kant posited that the purpose of laws is to codify moral duties. And, perhaps as a counterpart to these two ideas, Bentham held that the purpose of laws is to promote the best consequences for the greatest number of people. Having heard these three responses, some might ask, “what practical difference does it make what theory we subscribe to?”, particularly since it is not hard to imagine all three purposes co-operating in the production of laws. An analysis of the following joke, however, illustrates the potential difference the underlying purpose for creating laws makes.

A judge calls the opposing lawyers into his chambers, and says, “The reason we’re here is that both of you have given me a bribe.” Both lawyers squirm in their seats. “You, Alan, have given my $15,000. Phil, you gave me $10,000.”

The judge hands Alan a check for $5,000 and says, “Now you’re even, and I’m going to decide this case solely in its merits.”

Paraphrasing the analysis of the book’s co-authors, if the purpose of proscribing bribes is to support the duty to deal equitably with all, or likewise if the purpose is to ensure even-handedness in the production of good consequences, then we might be able to endorse the judge’s course of action in taking equal bribes. However, if the purpose of law is to encourage the development of good character it becomes a bit more challenging to find any support for the judge’s actions.

So, there you go, philosophy through humor.

In calling Kierkegaard an existentialist, it is important to note that this philosophical movement took two divergent forms, one being atheistic, and the other religious. Kierkegaard is of the latter variety, and consequently central to his thinking regarding the specific circumstances of each person’s life is each person’s relationship to God. In their existential circumstances, as different and unique as it may be, each person is alienated from their essence, because the essence of each person is bound in each person’s unique relationship with God, a relationship from which each person is likewise alienated. Accordingly, this alienation is only overcome when a person, in their specific circumstances, makes the leap of faith, and thereby takes a stand in a unique relationship with God.

What makes me drunk, so to speak, when I read Kierkegaard’s ideas, is the implication that each one of us has a unique form that exists in the mind of God. In other words, when God called forth humanity into existence, he did not do so on the basis of some universal concept of what it is to be human, and from that universal begin to differentiate and individuate us. Rather, through the Word of creation, he had each one of us in mind, in our perfected state, exhibiting the unique qualities that would constitute us as individuals. In this manner there is for each one of us not a common human form that we all participate in, but rather a unique form for our specific human existence. These forms are present in the eternal Word of God, and they are enabled to substantiate each of our lives as we open ourselves to God’s actions through the incarnate and incarnating ministry of that same Word.

In watching the clip I must admit that I felt defensive, as I understand the importance of both history and philosophy in relation to the claims of Christianity, and yet I also understand that the verity of Christianity is beyond the scope of either of these fields of inquiry. In discussing this with Simon, however, I made note Mr. Maher’s choice of audience to confront with his supposedly faith damaging arguments. In short, Bill chose the type of Christian one would likely find at Christian theme park. Yes, this is a bit judgmental of me, but I imagine that behind the scenes Bill and his staff did their demographic homework regarding the kind of audience that would provide the most entertainment to be on the receiving end of Bill’s sharp wit. The Christians Mr. Maher confronts are your basic middle class, wage-working types, who don’t find a Christian theme park a bit kitschy, and who very likely don’t read a lot of scholarly articles and books, but who have a faith that emerges from what historian and biblical scholar N.T. Wright refers to as “an existential kicking of the tires.” In other words, they believe for deeply personal reasons that do not rely upon historical evidence or tight philosophical reasons, but rather rely upon the self-authenticating experience of the Gospel that gives them strength to live in a difficult and challenging world (I am aware that this is a deeply pragmatic understanding of faith, but addressing this is best left for another post).

At this point I was ready to call Bill an intellectual bully, but as I did research on the film, I found that he did speak to some intellectuals, as well as what might be referred to as “high level” types of various religious institutions. So, against what I initially thought, it appears that Mr. Maher was even handed in his demographic selection for those who would be on the receiving end of his sardonic wit.  Having made this concession, however, it is clear that Religulous is not a sincere documentary about the problem of religious belief in modern society. To begin with, the title is a mash-up of the words “religion” and “ridiculous,” which briefly and powerfully expresses Bill’s convictions about the subject and provides a cue to the audience as to what position they should take in relation to the forthcoming content of the film. And then, without even seeing the documentary, I do know enough about the dynamics of visual and verbal rhetoric that through the process of editing and framing I bet those of a religious persuasion are not genuinely given a chance to appear credible.

As I have further reflected upon this clip and the whole intent of the film, it seems to me that the problem Bill attempts to confront regarding religion and rationality is one that is inherent within his basic disposition toward the world. To illustrate what I mean, if Bill had confronted someone who was able to defend himself, or better still, who was able to persuade Bill that religion is a rationally acceptable response to the complexities of modern existence, though the battle may have been won, the war would have been lost. In short, if the reality of God can be supported and defended within the rationalist presuppositions of Bill’s worldview, then God would not be the kind of reality worthy of the worship and awe that monotheistic religions ascribe to him.

In the clip I viewed, Bill brought up the Holocaust to drive home the absurdity of believing that God is all good and all powerful (a typical monotheistic assertion). In response to this, the man Bill accosted (interestingly an actor who portrays Jesus in a dramatic reenactment of the crucifixion) made the assertion that God’s ways are beyond us. As was to be expected, Mr. Maher was visibly unimpressed. All of this reminded me of the first time I read Night, a loosely autobiographical novel  about a young man’s experience of surviving a death camp in Nazi Germany. This book was penned by Eli Wiesel, who about the problem of God’s providence and the Holocaust experience once said something to the effect that he did not want to hear an explanation where those two realities can be reconciled. In saying this I don’t think Wiesel was repudiating God’s existence. He was in fact a professor of Religion at Boston University, who taught courses about literature, religion, and memory. Instead, I think Mr. Weisel was committed to breaking all idolatry regarding our notions of God, and an idol is what one would have if one could rationally account for the Holocaust and God’s existence. Likewise, an idol is what Mr. Maher would have if he ever found an account of religious belief that was acceptable to his intellectual framework, for it would be merely a projection of  what he already worships: his own powerful mind and likely a belief in the all encompassing sufficiency of reason.

Perhaps the problem that prompts me to ask this question  is some notion of objectivity. It seems that in order to examine our thinking we have to somehow get out of ourselves, to get an overview of the process of thinking, but this doesn’t seem possible, as we are locked within the structures and process of our thinking.

*******

The responses I have received so far are challenging me to clarify the nature of my question, both for myself and for you all. (I am a dialogue dependent thinker). So, I give you the following, which I lifted and revised from the comment section:

So, I think I am inquiring about our ability to understand the phenomena of thinking as a whole, and within that I am wondering about the relationship of our thinking to the world or reality, or to whatever it is we are thinking about. And, it seems that the problem in this attempt to examine this relationship is that it would require us to look at our thinking as one object in relationship to another object, but I don’t think our thinking can be presented to us just as an object, since it is itself the subject involved in the process of examining the relationship.

*******

The following are brief articles or posts that touch upon or are related to the question I am posing:

Subject-Object Dualism

Subject-Object Problem

Some Little Kid: Hello
Me: Good afternoon. Is the head of house home?
Some Little Kid: Just a sec. [in the background] Daaad!! Some guys on the phone for you.
[ A moment later]
Mr Daniels: This is Mr. Daniels. May I ask who’s calling and what’s this about!?!
Me: Uh yeah, my name is Anthony and I wanted to talk to you about life.
Mr Daniels: Life?!? Is this about life insurance?
Me: That’s an interesting question. You know the word insurance comes from the Middle English word “ensure” which in its original commercial context designated a guarantee of compensation against loss, or damage of goods.
Mr Daniels: Huh?
Me: Well no. Uh, I mean that this is not about insurance in the commercial sense, and really its not about insurance in any kind of sense, cause I don’t think the things that really matter can be insured. Insurance kinda just gives a false sense of security. Not that I’m against being prudent when it comes to our resources, but the whole idea of life insurance is kind of funny to me.
Mr Daniels: I’m not sure if I’m following you. What’s this about again?
Me: It’s about life, life in general, like the meaning of life, or what is the good life?
Mr Daniels: Look… is this… are you for real? I don’t really have time for this.
Me: Perhaps you don’t have the time for anything else but this.
Mr Daniels: What?!?
Me: I mean, perhaps by neglecting this matter, and addressing all those other things that seem so pressing is the real waste of time. And, besides, what is time really?
Mr Daniels: Is this some kinda prank? Did John put you up to this?
Me: John? No. I don’t know any John, and if anyone put me up to this, I would have to say it was Wisdom, the search really. I think an essential part of being human is the search for wisdom, but the world too often draws us away with its distractions. Really, it kinda keeps us from our humanity.
Mr Daniels: Yeah… well you’re funny Mr. Wiseguy. Look, you tell John that we’re even now, and that there is no way he is going to get me off my game. When push comes to shove the account is mine!
Me: No really…
[dial tone]
Me: [thinking] hmmm… I guess that could’ve been worse.

*******

Gerald Grow’s Philosophy Cartoons

That’s pretty much how it is for me when I pray, meditate, think, or study. I’d probably have had a PhD by now if it wasn’t for that stupid fly. Okay, I’ll be honest, if it wasn’t for that stupid fly, the TV, raising a few kids, and having to keep my house clean. But other than this, I would probably have had a doctrate by now.

*******

Other Philosophy Cartoons From this Cartoonist

Fun Philosophy Stuff from Gadfly Inc.

Today, as I searched for texts for the class I came across and purchased an interesting little tome titled, The Pig that Wants to Be Eaten: 100 Experiments for the Armchair Philosopher, which I plan on using periodically as a heuristic tool to stimulate philosophical discussions. In short this book draws upon the Western Philosophical tradition to present small philosophical puzzles that touch upon abstract philosophical ideas in concrete narrative terms.

Since I have no qualms about extending the walls of my classroom, I thought I would share one of these thought experiments with you to see what responses I can generate among my readers. So, without further ado, I give you the following:

Like many people who had been married for several years, Dick was bored with his relationship. There was no passion these days. In fact, Dick and his wife harldy slept together at all. However, Dick had no intention whatsoever of leaving his wife. He loved her and she was an excellent mother to their children.

He knew full well that the usual solution to this problem was: have an affair. You simply accept that your wife satisfies some of your needs and your mistress others. But Dick really didn’t want to go behind his wife’s back, and he also knew that she could not deal with an open relationship, even if he could.

So, when Dick heard about Byte on the Side Inc. (Even better than the real thing!), he had to take it seriously. What the company offered was the opportunity to conduct a virtual affair. Not one-handed cyber sex with a real person at the other end of the computer connection, but a virtual reality environment in which you “slept with” a completely simulated person. It would feel just like real sex, but, in fact, all your experiences would be caused by computers stimulating your brain to make it seem to you as though you were having sex. All the thrills of an affair, but with no third person, and hence no real infidelity. Why should he say no?

So, what do you think?