home
archive · forum   
themes literature agenda archive anthology calendar links profile


english  How can you or your society decide.. No war in Iraq, please!

The Right Answer
I think that Patrick Baum's answer is very good and probably the sort of answer that is expected by the person that set the paper. If you discuss cloning, genetics in general, the ability to tell the sex of a baby (and perhaps abort it if it is not the sex that one hopes for), or the knowledge of how to make atomic bombs, or any other knowledge of thing that might be damaging, "not useful," non-utilitarian.

However there are lots of ways of being more radical in answer to this problem.

The Hidden Curriculum (Illich)
As an educator the first one that springs to mind concerns the value of being asked this kind of question, or all the other questions that people are asked in a typical educational curriculum. How much use is philosophy? How much use is the ability to answer this question? How many times will you need this knowledge or this ability? If (and I do mean if) the answer is "In fact, the ability to answer question of this sort is useless" then that knowledge is pretty dangerous - enough to make you want to burn the question sheet and not respond to the question. In general it seems to me that there is a case for the argument that a lot of "education" is in fact a sort of "dumbing down," or a sort of "dis-education" aimed at filling people's minds with facts and ways of thinking that deny the individual access to thier reality, and in so doing make them more digestable to social systems that provide this sort of education. However, perhaps this is to suggest that the ability to answer this question is not a form of "knowledge" at all, so this answer misses the point.

Elsewhere, however, particularly in the field of social psychology and psychoanalysis as well as good old Nietzsche, there are themes that suggest that knowledge is not good for you.

Yeah, Freddy run!
Nietzsche asked the question, a question that he was very proud of (he said he would be remembered for asking it), "what value is truth?" People normally assume that truth, in general (aside from cloning etc) is good, utilitarian. He argued, for example in his essay "The Birth of Tradgedy" that it is rather illusion that is good for life - that life likes, thrives on illusions. He said, consider the man (or woman) in love, the leader with a dream, the artist - is it because they have knowledge that they have *life*? Or is it rather because they believe in a dream, that is not yet, nor perhaps even "ever", realised/realisable but this un-truth feeds them, makes them thrive.

Positive Illusion
In social psychology there is famous paper by Taylor and Brown (look that up on Google) that asserts that (among Westerners at least) "positive illusion" is healthy. They claim, with a lot of experimental evidence that those people that are realistic about themselves and their situation are those that are having psychiatric treatment for being depressed. The healthy are those that do not know themselves, that are instead "positively" delude about themselves. There have been papers written to counter this arguement but from my reading, it seems to me that they are right. A certain amount of "opptimism" or "self-enhancement" is good for people (at least in Western, especially US society). Hence the old maxim "know thyself" is perhaps, from a utilitarian (or Nietzchian) point of view "not ethical."

Lacan and "Meconnaisance"
In psychoanalysis, Lacan argues that there is mis-cognition ("Meconnaisance") at the root of the self. While he proposes that we be aware of this to an extent, we should not throw off the illusion since, he quotes Pascal:

Les hommes sont si necessairement fous, que ce serait etre fou par un autre tour de folie, de n'etre pas fou

My trans - Humans are so necessarily mad that it would be mad by another route of madness, to be not mad.

Under my interpretation of Lacan, he claims that the true self "has no center" there is nothing that one can say is me or I. However for biological (I disagree) and social (I agree) reasons it is necessary that we do identify with a something. But this something, the "I" that we believe we are, is only ever going to be an object, and thus *alienating*. There are many levels at which one can "know" Lacan's proposition. Just by reading Lacan or hearing me precis him will not make you mad. But if you really know the truth he has to say, if you experience the truth - the real - then you will be mad (and sad, and on drugs probably).

Schizophrenia
Personally I think that this is why "schizophrenics" often refuse to believe that they are mad. Because in a sense they are partly right - there is no unity to the psyche, our voices even our, "I think therefore I am," come from elsewhere. The voices inside their heads do come from elsewhere. They also experience a breakdown of the self, which may be the truth, but certainly a very painful one for them.

Anti-Oedipus (a book by Deluze and Gattari)
While there are those that claim that we should al become schizo (Deluze and Gattari), generally speaking the breakdown of the self (illusion or not) is something that causes great trauma. Hence, perhaps the knowledge of this fundamental illusion (at the root of a lot of others, including the ones I mention above) is not something that it is ethical to know.

Terror Management Theory
The above argument raises the question of "levels of knowledge". There are probably many things that it is "good" (ethical?) to know at one level, but not good to know at another level. E.g. our mortality. The branch of social psychology called "terror management theory" asserts that, while we all know we are going to die, an immediate, experiential awareness of this fact is terrifying and results in a (healthy, normal) desire to escape from this reality. E.g. people that are asked to read or write an essay about their own death will behave in ways which help to afray the unpleasant conquences of this realisation. (Again, search for Terror Management Theory on the net).  

Budddhist Brinkmanship
The assertion that the self is in fact an illusion is shared by Buddhism. And while Buddhism is famous for encouraging people to realise the illusory nature of the self, most Buddhims in existance to this day (e.g. that in Japan) is "Boddhisatva" Buddism. The Boddhisatva is the 'almost enlightened' that saves the awareness of the illusion of self until all living beings are enlightened too. Because to realise the truth (i.e. to see through the illusion of self) would result an inablity to take part in society, and make us less able to work towards the enlightenment of everyone else. So the good modern Buddhist are told that they should stay on the brink of knowledge and not know the truth.

The Myth of the Fall
Speaking of religion, how about Adam and Eve? I am not sure how to approach that but I think that in any essay on the ethics of knowledge one should mention that at the root of our culture is a prohibition on knowing: "Don't eat that appple because you will know"

Personallly, as I do not believe in good and evil, I don't think that we ever got to know it. So the only way I can interpret the myth of the fall is "Don't eat the apple because you will think you will know." But... maybe not...

Another snake bites its tail
Finally, I think that IF their is knowledge of good and evil, if there is knowledge of ethics, then this is very unethical knowledge at least in so far as it seems to encourage those that think that they have this knowledge to bomb other people. So, I will end with

No war in Iraq! (please!)