Language, morality, and philosophy
Noam Chomsky writes in Language and Thought, that “some of our worst contemporary muddles are due to the general neglect of language as an instrument of thought.” This holds true particularly in the area of moral and political thought.
What is a “person?” Mississippi is about to vote on whether a zygote is a person. By expanding the concept, all concepts of personhood become muddy. Mississippi would define “life” as two cells which produce an energy which causes them to divide and reproduce, which would apply to many bacteria, viruses, and single-celled organisms. This suggests a rather Buddhist-like reverence for all living things, without specifying them as human. The philosophical questions which arise from this definition are myriad; a large percentage of early pregnancies are washed out, would we have funerals? Can a zygote inherit an estate? My son was conceived in Munich; under the proposed Mississippi law, he would have begun his life there, so is he German? Should he be carrying a German passport? Sloppiness with language leads to sloppy law and sloppy practice, which is destabilizing.
What is “democracy?” Is the mere presence of voting, as in authoritarian states like Zimbabwe, Egypt, “democracy?” Dictators can claim to have encouraged democracy by allowing people to vote, when in fact they have cheapened it.
What is “marriage?” Our vocabulary has not caught up with contemporary developments. Opponents of gay marriage, for example, take a single expansion of the concept to its extremes, asking if by sanctioning gay marriage, we are also sanctioning polygamy, and romantic ties with animals. The two members of a gay marriage are puzzling over what to call each other. “Husband and husband, or wife and wife?” This rebounds to the original definition of “husband” and “wife.” Some have chosen “spouse” which leaves the interlocutor in the dark about the nature of the marital tie. Maybe that is the point. We haven’t even clearly defined homosexuality. Is it a single act? A long-term relationship? An unhealthy fantasy life — the celibate Catholic priest who was a hero on September 11th defined himself as homosexual, though he had respected his vow of celibacy.
We need to get back to basics on some of our most dearly held principles. This involves re-defining certain social and political forces, philosophies, and institutions, perhaps separating them into smaller entities. By failing to do this, we are causing confusion, which Chomsky suggests leads to “muddles.”
Exercise: Ask students to take these and other fundamental social and political concepts and try to come up with a new, more accurate definition.
Leave a Reply