No, just because one person is flawed does not mean another person is. If morality does not exist, there can be no such thing as moral perfection, and if it does, then it is possible to be or become morally perfect. No person can be obligated to do that which they do not have the power to do. Either way, logical axioms, epistemologically self-evident, inherently true, and at the heart of all other things, are knowable by any willing person. Everyone already relies on them, albeit unknowingly for many. Concerning logic or morality and every truth associated with them, perfection of rationality (not making assumptions while at least grasping logical axioms and being open to other truths that follow) and of moral character (the willing, wholehearted upholding of whatever obligations one has) are not beyond anyone's reach.
So many people say otherwise because they do not want to face their own imperfections or the possibility of them. Other than general, sheer irrationality, there is likely an element of deep insecurity on the part of whoever believes that they cannot be the only person out of a pair that is philosophically and morally inept. For the sake of making himself or herself feel better, a non-rationalist might pretend like their exact flaws must be the same as those of other people--when this does not logically follow--or like all people must have some kind of flaw if the non-rationalist in question is not perfect. It is not a matter of being human; it is a matter of being a rationalist and being fully devoted to rationalism, embracing necessary truths, forsaking assumptions, and remaining resolute. Imperfection of these kinds, the only kinds that could have moral guilt, is always avoidable.
In an effort to not feel alone or, in some cases, as inferior to someone else as they really are, a non-rationalist might purposefully refuse to seek out these truths or will ignore the idea of them entirely. At least a stupid, hypocritical, philosophically apathetic person could recognize that they are stupid, hypocritical, and apathetic about the only things that are inherently true or the only things that could possibly matter. Most irrationalists or anti-rationalists will not even acknowledge this much. They will choose to be blind to their own failings or will refrain from admitting them. Sometimes, however, an honest admission even as they are still lost in delusions would be enough to make a critical rationalist turn to them in mercy or overt kindness, not rational judgment.
Related to this is the belief, and one that is inherently false, that the non-rationalist's irrelevant feelings of security or peace or self-esteem are more important than truth itself, without which it would not even be possible for them to exist or seek the distractions of emotionalism to start with. They might be hurting or terrified or confused, and yet as long as they cling to errors or assumptions even of things that could be known, they are deserving to that extent of contempt, aggression, mockery, or coldness. Someone who will not so much as affirm logical axioms, the only self-evident and intrinsically necessary truths (all other necessary truths hinge on axioms, and not even the self-evidence of one's own conscious existence means that one could not have never existed), is inferior to even waning or struggling rationalists.
Non-rationalists are people, and thus they are capable of total philosophical alignment with reason and of achieving moral perfection. Even the Bible, which is almost certainly true, directly teaches that moral perfection is of course attainable in places like Deuteronomy 30:11, Job 1:1, and Matthew 5:48. One could not be obligated to do what one cannot do! As for logical truths, their inherent veracity and the fact that all other things already rely on them means that no one can truly avoid them, obliviously or intentionally, and that anyone at all except for very young children or people with the likes of dementia can go beyond knowing self-evident logical axioms if only they actually tried. There is no excuse for stupidity or evil (outside of very precise moral dilemmas where one sins either way). Not even having never thought of a matter or being cautious about it means someone has to make assumptions or live for emotionalism in the meantime.
No comments:
Post a Comment