So, it kind of has occurred to me that I did this exact exercise once before. I outlined the christian worldview more succinctly and then built up my own worldview. However, i felt like discussing worldviews again is important due to current events, and I do want to offer a relatively abridged version of my own worldview. Without further ado, let me outline my own views.
Philosophy
Unlike the Christian worldview, i start with philosophy. As I see it, I am a thinking being. As Descartes would say, "I think therefore I am." So I can acknowledge that I, as a thinking being exist. I can also take note that I operate within this persistent environment that we call "the universe" or "reality." While it's true it could be an illusion and there could be other, greater realities out there, I can't observe them with my senses, so they're not really relevant here.
I seem to exist on this planet earth. I am a human. Like humans, I was born of other humans and have parents. The universe doesn't seem centered around me, as there others like me, but I am the center of my own frame of reference. Solipsism could be real, but I consider that in the same category as the reality as we know it isn't real. Sure, it could be the case, but I actually think that it would take more effort to demonstrate that than just accepting what's in front of us. None of these claims are absolute and irrefutable, but I need evidence to believe something else.
On the subject of knowledge, we can know things through observation, science (which is a controlled observation to test things), philosophy (taking what we know and applying logical principles to reach conclusions), and math (the same thing but with numbers). I tend to trend toward naturalism, but I do not deny that the supernatural or anything outside of naturalism can exist, I just need evidence that intersects with this plane of existence to believe in it.
Theology
As such, functionally, I will accept an agnostic athiest position on god. I don't deny god can exist, but once again, I need evidence that intersects with this plane of existence. We don't have strong evidence that does so though, and most arguments in favor of god seem to fall flat on their face in practice, so I'm going to be inclined to be skeptical.
I will take note that here there is a bit of a difference between my formal position on this subject and my personal position. Applying the christian logic of natural revelation and special revelation, I would say via natural revelation, agnostic atheism is the most intelligent view. But I do believe I have had a personal case of special revelation in the form of an anecdotal experience. However, I can't prove it, and I feel crazy even discussing it publicly, so I won't. It's not firm enough to be evidence enough for all to see, but it is firm enough for my own personal belief system.
Biology/history of universe
My views conform to the scientific consensus. The universe as we know it is 13 billion years old. We don't know what came before, or if "before" even existed due to the relativity of time. It could be created, but we don't know it. It could also be natural. We don't know and we shouldn't inject weird claims based on religion or spirituality into it. That's not a good way to know truth.
Life somehow came about. Once again, we don't know the exact method, but that doesn't mean we should inject religion or spirituality into it. A lack of knowledge isn't grounds to impose a heavily biased worldview that has no evidence itself. It's better to recognize that we don't know than to inject an agenda into anything.
But yeah, life seemed to start simple, but has evolved over time. Simple one cell organisms became more complex, eons passed, various forms of life came and went, and around 200,000 years ago, our species, homo sapiens, started to appear. We're an ape type species from Africa. We have since spread across the planet and adapted ourselves to six of the seven main continents or land masses on this planet.
History of civilization/basis of morality
Humans have always lived in groups. The fact is, it's a survival strategy. Life in a state of nature is, as Hobbes would put it, "nasty brutish and short." We die early and easily alone out there. Humans band together because it's in our rational self interest to do so. In doing so, we need rules. So we come up with stuff that's really basic common sense like "don't kill each other", or "don't harm each other." We don't always agree on specifics, and disputes between humans are as old as humans themselves, but still, there are some things we can likely agree upon. Like killing is bad. Harming others is bad. Infringing on others' liberty without a valid reason is bad. Happiness is good, pleasure is good, having your physical needs met is good.
As such, we form moralities. I'd argue that the goals of these moralities are parallel to "natural rights" theory, but without the strange divine command theory BS. Life should be protected. Suffering and hardship should be reduced. Humans should be given some level of liberty to do with their lives what they want. I won't go so far to say property should be a natural right or goal of morality. i think such an idea is harmful and property is actually a relatively recent intervention of modern civilization, and the concept we are familiar with is very modern. As such, I would relegate it to a lesser status.
Ultimately, morality is supposed to serve humans. it does not come from a god, it comes from human beings wanting to get along with each other. And because we dont agree, sometimes we need to establish societies with laws in order to do this. Ultimately rules are enforced with force. Might makes right at the end of the day, although I will say just because might can force a certain status quo on people, does not mean that it enhances human well being. As such, let's separate the idea that morality is a practice to improve human lives, with the fact that governance in states have a history of just imposing things on people whether they like them or not.
Because that's what states do. Ever since states arose 5000 years ago, people have been forced to be a part of them, and to follow their rules and edicts. These rules often don't favor individuals forced to participate, but often the upper ruling class who actively enforces and benefits from them.
For most of human civilization, societies have been an exercise in raw force, but starting with the enlightenment, we started putting principle into it. We developed grand theories of governance about how democracy or at least a constitutional republic is better than autocracy, and how secular governance is better than religious governance, and how a system of rights, checks, and balances is better than might makes right. The results to human well being speak for themselves. It's generally preferable to live in a free society than one run by a dictator.
As I said, I will dispute the right of property as a high level right, but I acknowledge property should exist and it should be tied somewhat to work. It makes sense from a practical perspective, although I don't think there's any cosmic rule that things have to be this way. it's just a social practice designed to meet our needs at a specific point in time.
Psychology
I believe humans are neither good nor evil as it is up to us to define and apply meaning to those terms. However, we are capable of both. We are both the arbiter of all morality, but also the ones who transgress. We are, if anything, self interested and driven by survival instincts, although this sometimes does have selective elements of selflessness for the sake of the group. Ultimately though, I would assume, in a general sense, that humans are self interested and mainly interested in their own survival and well being. After that, it extends to family/friends/tribe, and from there it expands outward. Humans struggle with universalism and dehumanize each other a lot though, which is the source of a lot of evil that happens in a modern context of civilization. This is where racism comes from, it is where war crimes come from. It's how we justify some of our worst impulses against the aims of our own morality like slavery and genocide. We wouldn't wish those things on ourselves, but those other and different from us? Yes. Humans are dualistic and can be hypocritical. They can be loving family people but also monsters who exterminate others. Take note of this, as I see people recently trying to humanize hitler and the nazis by showing him posing with children and smiling. Yes yes, he's human. Humans sometimes show love and affection, but they're also capable of great hate. Just because humans do one doesn't mean they do another. It's up to us to try to make society the best for all of us, so that we can all live collectively in peace. That which benefits the collective often also benefits individuals. Keep that in mind when having stupid debates between individualism and collectivism and big government vs small government. I know it's not in our immediate nature, but the more universal our moralities, the better for all involved.
Also, mental illness exists. Psychology is legitimate although arguably biased toward current cultural practices associated with economics. Take your pills and see your therapist ffs. You don't need Jesus (really throwing shade at christianity here).
Sociology
I dont care about weird god ordained institutions like family, church, and work. Sociology is a practice of studying humans and their cultural practices. We have norms, which are informal rules, rules, institutions designed to meet certain human needs, what have you.
There are three branches of sociology that serve as important lenses for analyzing society:
Conflict theory- looks at how society, its rules and institutions, serve the rich, the powerful, the privileged, etc.
Functionalism- looks at the practical functions societal institutions serve
Symbolic interactionism- looks at the meaning that institutions give people in a subjective, cultural sense.
All three are useful, although for my own analyses I tend to focus on conflict theory and functionalism as I'm not super interested in the soft mushy cultural stuff.
As for the interaction between society and individuals. I do believe that society and other external stimuli do HIGHLY influence who a person becomes and their actions. I believe so to an extent that I'm not really sure free will exists. It really is hard to tell where determinism determined by biology and social influences end and where free will begins. As such, I oscillate between compatibilism and determinism a lot. I would say my naturalistic views trend toward determinism but my unproven spiritual views do imply some level of free will exists, although I'm not sure to what extent.
Law
Law is effectively applied morality for the masses. Everyone has their own subjective standards, peoples' ideas conflict, and ultimately, we need a set of laws to have something relatively objective to measure our standards against. Unlike in christianity, i dont see god as some ultimate lawgiver, nor do i value the views of authoritarians. While people can impose such views and insist might makes right, im educated in an enlightenment era tradition that recognizes that true morality comes from the people, and the consent of the governed. As such, societal laws should be determined democratically. Rights should be protected to avoid governmental overreach. Ultimately, law should also be universal as it applies to everyone subject to a government. All humans should be treated equally under the law. All should be given rights. It's the best way to stop the abuses that happen with tribalism and factionalism discussed in the psychology section. Laws should also seek to conform to the goals of morality, such as extending life, reducing suffering, and giving people liberty and the ability to pursue their own happiness.
Politics
Politics essentially discussions and disputes that happen regarding law in society. Different groups have different visions for the way society should be, and given we live in a democratic society, the views that get the most votes tend to be put into law. I would argue that discussion of law and politics centers around the way things are. Some people see problems and want to change things to make them better. Let's call these guys progressives. Some are happy with the way things are. let's call them conservatives. Some are unhappy with previous changes and want to go back to some form of the past, let's call these regressives.
My own political orientation is progressive. I generally believe in the improvement of society, and perfecting our laws and institutions to serve people better. I support sweeping change, especially on economics, although I'm more moderate and "conservative" on social issues and foreign policy issues.
Ultimately, after a faction that is progressive implements their ideas into law, they become conservative. Then new progressives pop up and want to improve things further while other former progressives become conservatives and happy with the status quo. Former conservatives may become regressives, feeling that society went in a bad way and that they want to go back to how things were. Even though I'm progressive, I'm not necessarily implying any moral connotation in a vacuum. I have some views that are progressive, some are conservative, and some are even regressive. I do think that over time we should be progressive, but that doesn't mean that all change is good, you know what I mean?
Overall, I would say progressives are a minority in the US, while democrats are mostly conservative and republicans are mostly regressive. I WILL judge here. We do need a progressive approach to economics in particular, and soemtimes socially too. On most views im not progressive on I am relatively conservative, and in the modern context, I feel like the democrats are the true conservatives in society. Meanwhile the republicans are regressive and seem to want to go back to everything bad about the past. Gilded age economics, fundamentalist christian social views, even monarchy as of late, it's getting scary over there.
So yes, I support a largely progressive/conservative mindset depending on the issues, and largely align with the democrats, although I dont always align with them either as I am far more progressive than them economically, and slightly more conservative than them socially.
Economics
Like everything else, the economy exists for humans, humans don't exist for the economy. I believe capitalism is better than socialism on the whole, although as Noebel pointed out no system is fully one or the other, and I tend to ultimately support a mix of capitalist and socialist elements as he uses the terms.
I see capitalism as good primarily from a functionalist perspective, not a moral one. Economics is largely amoral for better or for worse, with most people acting in their self interest for better or for worse. While society does benefit to some degree from individuals acting in their self interest, often times they do not, and as such, the system requires heavy regulation.
I also do believe that calling property rights natural rights on par with the likes of life and liberty is a perversion of what rights are, and this distortion of our comtemporary morality does a lot of harm. Functionally, it forces people to work, forces us to be wage slaves to corporations who don't care about us, and this is where a lot of the evils from capitalism actually come from. As such, to fix this, not only do we need a modern regulatory state, but we need a basic income with universal safety nets to actually ensure that the economy works for people, and that peoples' rights (outside of property...) are actually properly respected. Property is a mere means to an end, not an end in itself, and while some level of inequality is justified as a way to motivate people to work, the excesses of our society, both in the wealth that exists among the rich, and the poverty that exists among the poor, are NOT justified by this need, and a basic income should correct for that.
I envision a society where everyone is well off enough to meet their needs, and is free to live as they want, whether they work and not work. I dont see work as a great thing in and of itself, it's just how we do things in order to make the stuff we want and need. The only value in work in my opinion is the product. As long as the product is made, I don't really care if people work or not, and if anything, I think a society in which we work less and work is more voluntary is an inherent good as work is an inherent threat to our liberty and right to pursue our own happiness.
In this 21st century moment, I actually support an economic bill of rights to guarantee the following:
An income at or above the poverty level
Healthcare
Education
Housing
Leisure/work life balance/freedom
History
As a progressive, the arc of history is long but it bends toward justice. Early civilization was very nasty and brutish, but humans have greatly improved our morals, laws, and institutions over time. Hopefully, we keep doing so and don't let the regressives win and pull us back into another dark age, that would be bad. But yes, once again, progressive orientation. We started out bad, then got better. We still have more progress to make, although I hope that the regressives don't/didn't vote our rights away. Ironically, despite autocracies enforcing morality on people, i see them as very amoral and immoral. They dont care about the people, they care about themselves, at our expense. So, while I say that history tends to trend toward progressivism over time, sometimes we regress. And we might be doing that now in American society. I actually fear for our future the way the current administration is going...
Conclusion
And yeah, that's my worldview in a nutshell. I think this is a bit more streamlined than my last iteration of this, and obviously, it is going to reflect advancements in my thoughts over the past few years, especially 2025, as we enter the second trump administration. But yeah, that's my worldview. it's mostly humanist. It's a lot better than fundamentalist christianity, that's for sure.
No comments:
Post a Comment