Recently, in order to explain how syllogistic
logic works, Richard Dawkins used two examples which need to be critically
analysed.
A. "Date rape is bad. Stranger rape at knifepoint is
worse. If you think that's an endorsement of date rape, go away and learn how
to think."
B. "Mild paedophilia is bad. Violent paedophilia is
worse. If you think that's an endorsement of mild paedophilia, go away and
learn how to think."[i]
There are
contradictions in his statements which need to be analysed. In his teachings, if he did not mean to argue
that the circuit of life is a closed circuit between bad and worse and only
wanted to teach about syllogistic logic, or as he said, to teach relativism,
then he encounters major contradictions.
First, calling date rape “bad” and rape by a stranger “worse” is a subjective
judgement. It happens that date rape might
be worse because it can also be a betrayal of trust. He [Dawkins] might respond that in this case
date rape becomes “worse” than rape by a stranger, but he would be ignoring the
[more general] fact that a mind which creates hierarchies of badness is the
mind of an absolutist and determinist.
Second, the closed circuit of bad and worse also inclines in one
direction from bad to worse. As someone
who teaches syllogistic logic, he knows that such a deduction is used to make
the acceptance of a conclusion inevitable.
This is why such a closed circuit is part of syllogistic logic.
Third, [both the] “bad” and “worse” of badness are negations of
right. To rank such things does nothing
but justify the bad and make it “acceptable”.
He accepts mild paedophilia as bad, and from the view of someone else it
is worse. If he had read [the Persian
poet] Hafiz, he would not have thrown himself into the trap of syllogistic
logic:
Judging the poor and rich "less"
or "more" is evil.
It is an absolute to avoid such indiscretion.
In order to
remove this contradiction, we need to realize that [both] “bad” and “worse” are
anti-right. This is why they create a closed circuit. Dawkins, who is
introducing syllogistic logic, should not neglect that he has also created such
a closed circuit. His response to
critiques was: “What I have learned today is that there are people on Twitter
who think in absolutist terms, to an extent I wouldn’t have believed possible.”
It shows that he does not realize that it is he who thinks in absolutist
terms. This is because when one traps
himself [or herself] in a closed circuit of choosing between “bad” and “worse”
there is no choice -- only one way from “bad” to “worse” and from there to “worst”. In other words, to relativize badness is [a]
damaging form of submission to the absoluteness of badness, and a result of becoming
prisoner within a closed circuit of “bad” and “worse”.
However, if
we consider that he knows a result of syllogistic logic is that one has to
submit to a “bad” [option] in order to escape a “worse” [one], then the analogy
he develops reveals that he is a determinist.
We can see this in the sentences which follow his analogies: “If you
think that's an endorsement of date rape/mild paedophilia, go away and learn
how to think". Obviously, these sentences are written to ward off any
accusations that he approves of date rape or mild paedophilia. For the sake of argument, if we accept that he
does not think that date rape or mild paedophilia are good, we can ask whether,
by developing these scenarios, he does not want to say that if one is forced to
“choose” between “bad” and “worse”, there is no option but to “choose” the “worse”.
If he did not have this intention, why did he create the circuit? Does the
theoretician of the “Selfish Gene” not want to say that the survival of the
fittest is a closed circuit of ‘bad’ and ‘worse’ and that these two analogies
reflect his theory? Or when he says, “go away and learn how to think”, does he
not want to say that the choices people make and even see as good are nothing
but a fated outcome of choosing between ‘bad’ and ‘worse’?
If the
answers to these questions are affirmative, then his two analogies suffer from three
further contradictions.
First, it is also possible to commit neither rape nor paedophilia. Therefore, there is not a closed circuit in
reality. However, as Dawkins is a
fatalist, he neglects this possibility of independence and freedom, or the
relation of “right” with “right”, and sees only the relation of “power” with “power”.
He therefore creates closed circuits between mild paedophilia and violent
paedophilia, and date rape and violent rape.
Despite saying: “go away and learn how to think", he can’t see the
relation of “right” with “right” and he makes [a relation of] “either this or
that”. To acknowledge that the relation between “right” and “right” is natural
and innate would destroy the foundation of his theory.
Second, the crux of these two analogies is that within them any sexual
relation is regarded as a power relation.
This is based on the negation of human beings as right-oriented. The fact is that not all sexual relationships
are power relations, when they are spontaneous and there is no force involved. To acknowledge spontaneous relationships
between people is to acknowledge the open horizon of human intellects, which in
turn is to acknowledge the connection between humans and God. In other words, Richard Dawkins would need to
acknowledge that by denying God it is he who has been captivated in delusion.
Third, if we assume that Dawkins’ two examples are closed circuits of bad
and worse, even though the “bad” is not “good” there is no option other than to
act upon it. These analogies tell us
that the reason for making a “bad” choice is that we want to avoid a “worse” one. If he wants to convey this meaning to his
readers, he does not know that in a closed circuit there is no such a thing as choice
and that by choosing [(or rather submitting to)] a “bad” [option], then “worse”
and “worst” [ones] also are chosen. He
and all the people who create closed circuits of bad and worse, or who trap themselves
in them, ignore the fact that what makes a person commit paedophilic acts or
rape is the authentication of power and act through it. It is this
characteristic which makes a person violate rights, and as soon as someone submits
to the fatalism of power they constrain themselves to a one-way path that moves
only from “bad” to “worse” and from there to “worst”.
The fundamental question which our
biologist needs to answer is this: If the circuit of the life of living beings
was a closed circuit of bad and worse, would they have become living beings at
all?
When we eliminate the contradictions,
then spontaneous relations ([those of] independence and freedom) become
relations in open circuits, and such circuits and relations make life possible.
[i]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10998498/Richard-Dawkins-in-storm-over-mild-date-rape-tweets.html
