I support Appiah's model (via Kant) of the two standpoints and here's why:
Looking at structure v. agency as social science's problem of freedom versus determinism is helpful and I think that Appiah gives a strong case for his position. Holding that either position is somehow canceled out by the other (separatist theory) is problematic because both are relevant in our lives. As Appiah says, they are helpful for explaining different things. As I suggested in class, it might be useful to think of agency (freedom) to be concerned with reasons for actions ("why" questions) whereas structure (determinism) is concerned with causes of actions ("how" questions). This makes it a lot easier to break down, because all you have to do is ask yourself what kind of question is being asked and you'll know which sort of answer is relevant.
If you think about a murder case, the reason for the action will result in a question like "why did he do it?". Here we'll probably want to give an answer that appeals to the agency (freedom) of the murderer, maybe stating some possible motive. On the flip side, the cause of the action will result in questions like "how did he do it?". Here, we'd analyze the hard evidence... You get the picture. For me, there is no blurry area.
In class, issues were brought up about there being underling "why" questions that will eventually come up in the "how" line of reasoning and causal explanations. I don't agree with this and I'd challenge anyone to come up with a solid example. We might want to ask "how forensic science came to be" or "how the court system decided to place precedence on hard evidence" etc. When we start asking "why forensic science came to be" we are asking a very different kind of question and it is not connected to the former. This is why Appiah suggests that they might both be relevant, but as different standpoints, we cannot simultaneously look at both.
Although I agree with Appiah when it comes to identity and other issues at the human level, I would go a step further and say that "why" questions are often misleading and are unfounded in such a way that you can get absurd answers when we apply them at higher levels. I fear I've already strayed too far off course, but as a final example we ought to think about religion and science because that is really at the heart of this debate. Consider the questions "how are we here?" and "why are we here?". To me, the how question if far more relevant because we can look to science (a seemingly more objective and better founded approach to theory) to help us answer the question. We can look to astrophysics, astrobiology, cosmology, geology.. these are all helpful is thinking about how we are here. When we ask why, there are several more possible answers, all equal in there probability because there are unfounded. Answering the why question is largely a religious endeavor (and as such it has several problems that go way beyond the scope of this class). Maybe it might be too much to say that "why" questions at this level necessarily delve into metaphysics, but I'll say it anyways.
To bring this back home, I think the "how" of identity is the superior of the two standpoints, but this does not mean that we should ignore the "why". "Why" questions at this (human) level imply free will and that is something that I am comfortable talking about. The point for Appiah, I think, is that we should not fall into the trap of partialism and attempt to combined the two. They are separate and each have their own merit, albeit of varying degrees ; )
What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment