The science of Psychology,
in particular, has cast a harsh spotlight on the inconsistencies of
rationalism. The moral philosophers’ hope of finding an empiricist foundation
for a moral system was broken by thinkers like Quine and Gödel. Rationalism’s
flaws were just as clearly shown up by psychologists such as Elliot Aronson and
Leon Festinger.
Elliot Aronson (credit: Wikimedia
Commons)
Aronson was Festinger’s student, who went on to win
much acclaim in his own right. They both focused their work on cognitive
dissonance theory, which describes something fairly simple, but its
consequences are profound and far-reaching. Basically, the theory says that the
inclination of the human mind is always toward finding good reasons for
justifying what we want to do anyway, and even more firmly believed reasons to
justify the things we’ve already done. (See Aronson’s The Social Animal.1)
What it says essentially is this: a human being
tends, actively, insistently, and insidiously, to think and act so as to
perceive and affirm itself as being consistent with itself. In every action the
mind directs the body to perform, and in every phrase it directs the body to
utter, it shows a desire to remain consistent with itself. In practice, this
means humans tend to find and state what appear to themselves to be good
reasons for doing what they must do in order to maintain the conditions in
their environment with which they have become comfortable. The individual human
mind constantly strives to make theory match practice or practice match
theory—or to adjust both—in order to reduce its own internal feelings of
discomfort —that is, what psychologists call cognitive dissonance.
A novice financial advisor who used to speak disparagingly
of all sales jobs will soon be able to tell you with heartfelt sincerity why
every person, including you, ought to have a carefully selected portfolio of
stocks. The physician adds another bank of expensive therapies—of doubtful
effectiveness—every year or so to his repertoire. The plastic surgeon can show
with argument and evidence that all the cosmetic procedures he performs should
be covered by the country’s health-care plans because his patients aren’t
spoiled and vain, they are “aesthetically handicapped.”
The divorce lawyers are not setting two people who
used to love each other at each other’s throats. They are merely defending the
clients’ best interests, while the clients’ misery grows more profound every
week. The cigarette company executive not only finds what he truly believes are
flaws in cancer research, he smokes over two packs a day. The general sends his
own son to the front. And his mother-in-law’s decent qualities (not her rude
ones) become more obvious to him on the day he learns that she owns over ten
million dollars’ worth of real estate. (All that worry! No wonder she’s rude.)
The Philosophy professor, whose mind is trained to
seek out inconsistencies? He once said he believed in the primacy of the rights
of the individual over any group’s rights. He sought to abolish any taxes that
might be used to pay for social services. Private charities could do such work,
if it needed to be done at all. But then his daughter, who suffers from bipolar
disorder and who sometimes secretly goes off her medications and runs away from
all forms of care, no matter how loving, runs off and becomes one of the
homeless in the streets of a distant city. She is spotted and saved from almost
certain death by alert street workers, paid (meagrely) by the government. Now
he argues for the responsibility of citizens to pay taxes that can be used to
create programs that hire street workers who look out for and look after the
destitute and unfortunate in society.
In addition, he once considered euthanasia to be
totally immoral. But now his aging father who has Alzheimer’s disease has been
deteriorating for over five years. Professor X is broke, sick, and exhausted
himself. He longs for the heartache to be over. He knows that he cannot keep
caring, day in and day out, for the needs of this now unrecognizable, pathetic,
gnarled creature for very much longer. Even Dad, the dad he once knew, would
have agreed. Dad needs and deserves a gentle needle. Professor X is certain of
it, and he tells his grad students and colleagues so during their quiet,
confidential moments.
No comments:
Post a Comment
What are your thoughts now? Comment and I will reply. I promise.