User:Triple zero one/sandbox

A broad introduction to the issues of Understanding the History of Moral Philosophy

Moral philosophy has been historically defined through large paradigm shifts in ideas, both in our concept of ethics and ethics in practice. Despite there often being large schools of specific ethical thought throughout history, the analysis of the history of Ethical Thought is precarious. There is a fine balance to be struck between looking back at ethical thought through our own modern preconceptions whilst avoiding a Hegelian view on history. A Hegelian view can be problematic as it leads to the searching for the wrong ideas and concepts as he sees history as acting purely towards forming the present. On the contrary, a view with our own preconceptions can leave out many trains of Ethical thought that we simply would not regard as ethics today. To further this idea, Schneewind argues that it is impossible to go into the history of moral philosophy without some form of established view. He draws upon two traditional, but opposing views, the first being the study of morals on a Socratic basis where we aim to find moral truths, and the second being that moral truths already exist and always have, whether for secular or religious reasons. When we study morals, we tend to take one of these ideas with us. However, whilst Schneewind accepts that these beliefs can influence how we perceive the history of morality, they can also help us answer different questions. He argues that the interrelationship between these ideas can help explain a lot about contemporary societies, and how the two clash/concile can explain a lot about contemporary norms, values and issues.

The Birth of Moral Philosophy

The first usage of what we would call Ethics began with the first ascriptions of positive behaviour within the earliest forms of literature, such as in the Iliad However, it took up to the 5th century for the actual discipline to begin to form under Socrates, with the introduction of thought to help develop a way of life in a form of care for the soul. It is Socrates who introduced a vital aspect of Moral Philosophy which distinguishes him from predecessors. In historical Greek works, such as the Iliad, shows the ascription of specific moral traits to specific classes in society, eg. a King should have X traits, a warrior should have Y traits. Thus, the concept of the good (agathos) was only relevant towards one social standings. To put it simply, Socrates identified changes in society and aimed to adapt morals into the more universal approach that we see today. It is through this change in perspective that many scholars prescribe the title "the first moral philosopher" to Socrates.

Mythology in Antiquity

The study of Mythology and Antiquity tend to go hand in hand, yet neither can be interpreted as one another. Mythology tends to be regarded as an ahistorical approach, breaking away from traditional historiography, looking at the nature of traditional societies. Many stories that hold mythological status, such as the story of the Founding of Rome, have no historical evidence to support that the events took place, and the first, arguable, form of evidence of the recognition of the story comes in the 4th century BC. Due to this lack of evidence, it is clearly understandable why historians see of a lack of value, in narrative purposes, for these stories; there is simply no evidence that they occurred. The further divergence of the story of the founding of Rome, where some claim Aeneas was the founder of Rome, whilst some see Romulus, as well as the differing narratives that exist, particularly in the latter, further create more contradictions and confusion when trying to use the source for narrative purposes and thus detract from the sources' value. Whilst it is normal for there to be different opinions and views upon events in antiquity due to the differing circumstances that contemporary writers experienced, for there to be such a lack of consensus over the key narrative points makes the narrative value of this myth low. This concept of the mythology being an ahistorical recording modern historians to claim that the two stand as "antithetical modes of explanation".

However, myths introduce different forms of qualitative evidence which can be used for different historical purposes. Whilst Historians don't take myths literally as a genuine narrative of events ., myths provide alternative ways to understand societies at the time. They help exemplify the sentiments of contemporary societies, for example, the concept that Romulus was responsible for Remus' murder in a form of fratricide echoes the idea that Rome was destined to tear itself apart. They help explain the broader sentiments, whether desires, fears or simply areas that lacked understanding within a society. It can be argued so far as that mythology helps explain a different aspect of history, and that mythology is the driver of history and societies. Thus, whilst mythology holds little evidential value for narrative events, it can hold significant evidential value when it comes to understanding ancient societies.

The issue of Evidentialism

One key aspect of theology revolves around the question of God's existence. Throughout history there have been numerous attempts at trying to prove that God does exist. Theories began with the Ontological Argument, formed by Anselm, and have been continued by a huge variety of theologians, like Aquinas and Augustine, as well as numerous philosophers such as Descartes, Hume and Locke. Particularly with Descartes, he sees God's existence as the first truth that we experience beyond the comprehension our own existence of ourselves in a form of ontological argument. None of these proofs have successfully and undisputedly proved the existence of God, but instead they have introduced the concept that it isn't entirely irrational for God to exist and that there are ways that we could potentially rationalise God's existence.

Today the debate has shifted towards the concept of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidentialism#:~:text=Evidentialism%20is%20a%20thesis%20in,supports%20his%20or%20her%20belief. Evidentialism], which entails that a belief is only justified if there is conclusive evidence for it. Hence, the tradition of proofs for God's existence stand aiming to provide the evidence to justify a belief in God in an evidentialist fashion. However, the debate, today, exists around whether religious beliefs should be governed by these rule of evidentialist, or to what extent religious beliefs should be. To exemplify recent challenges to this belief, I will draw upon the works of two key 20th century philosophers, Wittgenstein and Plantinga. Wittgenstein, a once logical positivist turned fideist, introduces the concept of language games. A language game is the concept that words only hold any meaning in the context of the language, ie. the game played . This relates back to epistemology as the concept of epistemology differs depending on which one of these games are being played. We are transposing scientific standards of epistemology into an area where the scientific approach shouldn't be used . Plantinga has many issue with evidentialism, but his main idea, of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_epistemology#:~:text=from%20reformed%20epistemology.-,Plantinga's%20Reformed%20epistemology,reformed%20epistemology%20is%20Alvin%20Plantinga.&text=More%20specifically%2C%20Plantinga%20argues%20that,be%20justified%20independently%20of%20evidence. reformed epistemology] argues that a belief in god is a "fundamental belief" and should not be deduced from other truths, he draws upon concepts such as the fact that we can believe in other minds, it should be equally rational that we can believe in God for both are based of which we cannot prove but we should take to be true. . He also criticises the evidentialist roots in classical foundationalism, where he argues that the latter is "self-referentially incoherent" due to it failing its own rules.

The power of Advertising
Advertising is potentially one of the most influential establishments in the 20th and 21st century. The power that it holds within society is immense, it is capable of deciding social and market trends. The true power of advertising is first, truly, seen under the work of Edward Bernays. Bernays was the nephew of Freud, and drew upon Freud's work in order to tap into the mind of the public. His most famous work, was in regard to the Torches of Freedom, a movement created in order to encourage more women to smoke in what was a societally frowned upon activity. The main aspect of his plan was to turn the cigarette into a symbol for feminine empowerment and as a symbol for gender equality. This lead contributed greatly to the steady increase of women smokers, from 5% in 1923 to 18.1% in 1935 to 33.3% by 1965, and by the 90s, the message of "Torches of Freedom", began to be used in cigarette exports to emerging markets. This example clearly shows that marketing can be effective, over the space of a decade it can create large demand for a product out of next to nothing. One consideration to take is that this example is set in the 1920s; the access to markets and the ability and effectiveness of the spread of information was incredibly limited when compared to the globalised world that we live in today. The estimated radio ownership for a family in America was around 35-40% by 1929, and comparing this to smartphone ownership in America in 2019 at 90% exemplifies how adverts can reach a significantly greater audience, especially if we take into account the differing nature between smartphones and radios; smartphones can be accessed anywhere and can provide more information. Combining this with the capitalist ethos of hyper-consumerism, the shortening attention span of each generation and the increasing media consumption of each generation, it is clear what role advertising is to play in the future. Bernays indeed did foresee the growing necessity and need for advertising. He gave the concept of "Engineered Consent", where, when democracy was pushed due to the growing masses, the need for manufactured obedience through the creation of ideas (by the ruling minority) and implantation (into the masses) would ensure democracy's survival, or at least capitalism's. It is thus clear that the power that advertising holds over consumers is immense. However, it is not only consumers that advertising holds over, but instead it can lead to the domination of an industry and formation of monopolies through entry barriers. This is highlighted by the importance of distribution costs, where adverts have become a necessity, especially in today's world, and if one cannot generate demand for their product then their business will fail. In already saturated or monopolised industries this means immense costs in order to compete, which is why it can act as such a barrier. As such, both of these points highlight the immense power that advertising holds, both in the controlling and monopolising of an industry, and over the consumer/citizen in regards to both what they want to buy as well as what they should believe in.

Law, Philosophy and the Role of Human Rights
A key tension over the justification for the Security Law is the nature of human rights. It is around this issue that there has been much contention, namely with the UN high commissioner for human rights calling for a rewrite on the grounds of human rights. As laws are ultimately justified through the authority that a government is granted to create laws (regardless of where or who this power is granted from), the only evidential claim against the law is on the grounds of human rights, for the law supposedly underwent the legitimate processes of the French government. Thus, the question of human rights is key in this discussion in the justification for this law. Human rights are claimed to be "inherent to all human beings" by the united nations yet there is no evidence for their existence as intrinsic truths, but instead are ascribed value amongst ideas of human morals. Unless one stands in an moral absolute stance, there is no justification for intrinsic human rights. However, the issue isn't about whether those rights exist, as this is more semantic and taking the argument into too abstract an area, but instead on what these rights should have priority. Macron justified the law through the rights that police had to be protected (family 1 of rights), whilst protesters argued it stood against their right of freedom (family 3 of rights). Legally, Human rights hold a higher standing than international law and can be used by citizens to hold their governments accountable, so if the liberty of the populace is prioritised over the security of the police then obligations to the law are justified. However, if we observe the French Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789, the precursor to the French Constitution in 1791, there is a key issue between article 4, where one has the freedom to do what they wish as long as they harm no others, and article 15, which is the right to hold public agents accountable. It is here that philosophy can help exemplify which of these rights should be protected. Whilst there is no philosophical consensus, as mentioned earlier a Hobbesian (who would believe in absolute state authority) would disagree with a Lockean (who believed in inalienable natural rights), but the purpose of these writers was to create rules for a more generalised approach to the legal powers of states. When it comes to rights themselves, approaches by Cranston, who aims to provide a way to analyse rights themselves and prevent the issue of rights inflation, which is the concept that too many rights may arise if we keep the definitions of rights as broad as they are now. If we apply some of Cranston's tests, particularly the idea that rights must respond to threats to other or the same rights, we can see that we can justify the UN reaction as the right of the freedom of press in regards to the police contributes to the prevention of future injustices done by the police, so the rights of freedoms, in this case, help protect future security rights of the public. On the contrary, the rights the police have to security stand not in defence of any other rights, but instead stand in contradiction to the future security rights of the public. As such, through this combined approach we can justify the UN response and see how we can prioritise rights over one another.

The Interdisciplinary Approach
The usage of evidence in these three disciplines is ultimately very different, and as such lead to very different outcomes. Political Philosophy uses evidence to support normative claims, whilst Sociology aims to explain why things are in society and create theories around that and law is used to exert powers over a society. This is the main reason for why an interdisciplinary approach is needed in the understanding the issue. The philsophy helps us grasp the purpose of the law in a wider societal perspective, the sociology helps us grasp how the law will impact society and the discipline of law helps explain how the law will be put into practice and on what grounds. It is through evidence that we can justify the claims and actions that arise from each of these disciplines, and whilst many of them paint conflicting or differing pictures, they are vital in understanding the French Security Law as a whole, not just a single aspect of it.