Addendum

Actually, I should clarify the claim in my last post. I believe that what we call "morally good" and "morally bad" is meaningful only relative to culture, which gives our actions meaning. Sometimes this is taken to mean that those concepts aren't really important. Here's the logic: If "good" and "bad" are meaningful only relative to culture, then they are highly malleable, since culture itself is highly malleable. If they are highly malleable, then they are arbitrary. If they are arbitrary, then they can't be important. That's a possible view, but it's not mine. I certainly do not think that they are unimportant. To be clear, while I do believe that "morally good" and "morally bad" are highly arbitrary, I do not believe that all virtues and vices are likewise arbitrary, and I do not believe that, even if they were, they would be unimportant. I might write more on this in the future.

Just Words? Part 2

Last time I argued that words at least sometimes constitute actions, and that there are no good or bad actions without a society to provide us with an opportunity to act in a morally good or morally bad manner (or courageously, or maliciously, or any other virtue or vice). I don't think these points are all that controversial. This time I'll argue that society does something else, too. It gives our words and our actions meaning. And because of this, in Part 3, I will argue that we have strong reasons to believe that language does change people--make them better or worse--as was suggested to me.

Society acts as the judge of our actions. Society imbues us with a sense of what a good person is. We judge people against that standard. Of course, we have some freedom to accept or reject those standards and create our own (though, as far as I can see, we don't have as much freedom as some would like to believe). For the most part, though, in order to judge people and actions, we measure them against real world examples. Want to know what you should do? Ask yourself what the virtuous person would do. What would the virtuous person do? Theorizing alone can't tell us; only our own thoughts and feelings can.

Critics object to this characterization of moral decision-making, charging it with relativism. If society is the judge of our actions, then an action could be good in one society and bad in another. And, indeed, I admit this; my view is relativistic. Actions are good or bad measured against actually-existing pracitices, not non-existent ideal types. I think it's ridiculous to suggest that there could be a society in which no individuals are virtuous people, yet non-relativists must argue that there could be such a society, at least in principle. So relativism is a strength of my view, not an objection. The charge of relativism is a red herring.

Just Words? Part 1

"I strongly believe that words can change the human being itself." I've been thinking about this statement. It struck me when I heard it as a bit counterintuitive but thought-provoking. It countered my intuition because of the context. We had been talking about strong language in general and expletives in particular. The idea that, say, swearing too much could change a person puzzled me. It wasn't something I had thought about previously, but it got me thinking. This post is the first part of my attempt to explain my thoughts.

Back to the original statement: Can words change people? Actually, this statement must be true. I don't think there's any doubt that words at least sometimes constitute actions. The bride who says "I do" at her wedding isn't merely saying those words; she's making a commitment, and she's embracing a set of norms bound up with marriage. She is saying "Yes!" to her husband, and also "I accept this" to the institution of marriage itself. She isn't just saying something; she's doing something. Once we admit that words are, or can be, actions, it's easy to see how words can, and do, change people.

Words change people insofar as people are products of their actions. Some would say that people just are their actions. That overstates things, but it's not far from the truth. We label people "good," "bad," "selfish," "warmhearted," etc. not based on what's in their heart; we apply those labels after we see how people manifest their thoughts and feelings in relation to others. There are no good, bad, selfish, or warmhearted people without a society to provide us with an opportunity to be good, bad, selfish, warmhearted, etc. Society provides an opportunity for people to express the virtues and vices. This is an important point, but it's not the only one. I'll write more on this in Part 2.

Qualia, Language, and Butterflies

I believe in something philosophers call qualia. Qualia are, basically, what human experience is like. If a blind person asked you what it's like to see red, you'd be hard-pressed to describe it adequately. Red is something you simply experience. Consider another example: What is it like to taste something? Maybe you think you can answer that question by replying "sweet," "sour," "chewy," "crunchy," etc. And I would say, "Yes, that's correct, but what is the experience of tasting something sweet like? How can you describe it to someone who has never tasted something sweet?" You can't, or at least I don't believe you can, but it exists as a quality of your experience. Lots of people disagree with me, though, and my view might well be in the minority.

Anyway, I believe that there some experiences in life that are simply ineffable. They can't be described properly in words. Qualia are ineffable. So is the feeling in my stomach as I write this. The closest approximation in English is to say that there are butterflies in my stomach. What does that mean? I can't say.

July 4

Life, as usual, goes on. Work is the same old same old. I enjoy it, though I'm looking forward to the next much-needed 3-day weekend. I'm taking Korean class this month, this time 2 hours a day, everyday. All together it's a heavy load, but it's all worthwhile.

Oh, and that Korean high school English teacher I met through Facebook? Well, I've met her a couple of times now, but she reads this blog, so I ain't gonna say much more than that ;) We were chatting last night, though, and she said something thought-provoking. I intended to write about it here, but it might be awhile before the post goes up. Her comments touched on some interesting ideas that I'm keen to explore at length.