Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will

By Marko Beljac - posted Thursday, 1 December 2011


There does exist an argument for pessimism about the future of modern human society, indeed humanity itself that is based on the Copernican Principle.

Most humans who have ever lived, there are now 7 billion of us, have lived very recently, indeed could well now be alive. So, should it transpire that humanity were to be wiped out in some calamity, it follows that our particular appearance as individuals in the timeline of humanity would not be at all special. If we are at, say, the first 0.001% of all humans that shall ever live, meaning the species has a long and rosy future, our place as individuals in the human timeline would be most special indeed. Should we go now, our place would be, by comparison, rather untypical. By application of the Copernican Principle it follows that we should be pessimists.

We, seemingly, need to reduce the intuitive confidence that we place upon the longevity of man.

Advertisement

The Cambridge theoretical astrophysicist, and former Astronomer Royal, Sir Martin Rees argued that the 21st century might be "our final century." Despite what we might say about theoretical physics, science and technology continues to accelerate. Rees argues that the advancement of science and technology, coupled with its increasing diffusion, increasingly opens the prospect that they could be used for malevolent, ultimately catastrophically destructive, purposes. He argues that we have a "50-50" chance of making it through the century in one piece.

Such thoughts are not pleasant ones, but they certainly are worth thinking about, no matter how abstract, when we consider such matters as nuclear security and the global ecological crisis.

There are, however, grounds for optimism.

Throughout history, to be sure in fits and starts, that is to say it by no means has been linear, one can detect the reality of moral progress. Humanity, ironically enough following on from empiricist arguments in moral philosophy that lead ultimately to rationalist conclusions, has an innate and creative capacity for moral reasoning and the acquisition, indeed application, of moral knowledge. How the dedicated information processing areas of the mind enable us to do this is now becoming accessible to cognitive science.

The use of moral reasoning, not to be confused with reason itself, throughout history has seen us abandon behaviours and institutions that previously were taken for granted, but which we came to appreciate were morally deficient. Slavery is a notable example.

Since the 1960s, following on from the rise of popular social movements, Western civilisation has achieved quite important advances in the moral realm. For example, if it were now in 1962, I doubt whether there would be any mountains left on the landscape of Afghanistan. Unrestrained strategic bombing is something our governments cannot get away with anymore. Notice that this even applies after the worst single act of terrorism in human history. This is a very powerful indicator demonstrating moral progress.

Advertisement

Movements for nuclear sanity and ecological protection have an important ethical component. They essentially serve as movements that are trying to assert the rights of future generations and non-human life. This is something new and, again, is a good indicator of moral progress.

The global economic crisis, often cited in the case for pessimism, might be used to argue the opposite. Neoliberal economic restructuring, despite all the fancy topology, is essentially based on what Adam Smith called "the vile maxim of the masters of mankind," which he stipulated held throughout history - that being "all for ourselves and nothing for other people." This has been accompanied by a certain coarseness and an overt focus on individual wealth and gain. It should not perplex us that application of the vile maxim has led to increasing inequality between social classes.

Does this mean we have gone backwards?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

6 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Mark Beljac teaches at Swinburne University of Technology, is a board member of the New International Bookshop, and is involved with the Industrial Workers of the World, National Tertiary Education Union, National Union of Workers (community) and Friends of the Earth.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Marko Beljac

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Marko Beljac
Article Tools
Comment 6 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy