In this post, I would like to define black-and-white thinking as the two extremes of a spectrum of opinions.
Generally, I hear professors in somewhat philosophy-related subjects, such as political science, refer to “grey” thinking as harmful to societal progress.
But I find myself too conflicted with both sides to form a firm opinion. I feel both sides’ arguments are valid in any context. One side may be seen as more ethical or more humanitarian. But I feel one’s assumption that this white or black side is somehow “better” than the opposing side is just societal bias that’s been built into us.
This type of thinking makes me feel as if I’ll go nowhere in life, as I loop back to the same “ehhh, I can’t have a firm opinion on this, both sides are bad and good.” I would like to know what you all think. Do you believe that choosing a side is good? Do you think the ability to maintain neutrality in every context, while still understanding for all, is good or harmful?
But someone could still argue that murder is ok, for “justified” reasons, such as “they abused me.”
When is violence okay? Is violence justified if it’s needed for a democratic uprising against a dictatorship? Or, should we all maintain “treat others the way you want to be treated?”
There’s countless examples I could provide, but for any problem, I cannot seem to pick a side.
I do feel there are some undeniable aspects of life we must embrace, though–How diversity cannot be prevented, and therefore we must learn how to embrace it.
This type of thinking keeps you out of a rut. It forces one to consider both sides of an issue instead of being completely closed minded.
Consider the abortion issue. The two sides are almost always argued in black/white terms, with neither side willing to acknowledge the points made by the other side. Hence no progress is made.
I disagree with this unless murder is explicitly defined as ‘killing that’s not OK’, a definition which in no way suggests which kinds of killing are OK or not.
I can definitely think of situations where it is OK.
This is a great philosophical question, one I return to from time to time in my life.
I hope there’s no “correct” answer to this either, but I’d like to share my approaches.
First, it’s worth noting that neutrality or “grayness” (as you called it) is never constructive. Nothing worthwhile is ever created or destroyed by those who are neutral about a particular phenomenon. Even the greatest and most balanced things are always created by people who sincerely believe in their own rightness.
Therefore, for an individual, remaining “gray” in all areas is counterproductive: after all, it begs the question: “Were you yourself?”
Dig deeper into ontology, and it becomes clear that the very continuation of life tomorrow (as a conscious choice) is a life-affirming stance. And this is clearly not neutral. Therefore, any choice is no longer neutrality in the broad sense.
The next aspect is more socio-biological: joining another opinion, group, ideology, society, or anything else is sociobiologically justified, because it happens in the name of security. It’s very comfortable to simply choose a side. Having a separate opinion is much more valuable, both for the brain’s cognitive function and for conserving energy.
Although the first two premises seem contradictory, they are not: in this context, different levels of grayness are being discussed: passive grayness and active grayness.
The next approach is the basis for “gray” judgment. It should be noted that since this is an extremely energy-consuming process, it practically does not occur in minds that lack basic needs. Gray thinking is an elitist phenomenon, often inaccessible to the average person concerned with their daily bread.
Based on all of the above, I have decided not to take an extreme position or choose a “middle path” in everything. Because that would be an extreme again
I understand this stance, but I still believe one can be in a grey area in the context of wanting to live even if they choose to not kill themselves that day.
I also agree with your claim that, if one chooses to go on to the next day, they are taking a side. I think this also applies for everything, taking a strongly opinionated side that “chips are good” can create a butterfly effect of reasoning which will define your stance on life.
I also agree with this, but I feel morally wrong choosing any side. I see the butterfly effect I mentioned earlier if a size is chosen.
When it comes to non-trivial questions there’s nothing wrong with sitting on the fence however if there’s consequences to a serious decision then being in the grey area does not yield any benefits.
I think, in general, I agree. However, for action-guiding judgement, black-and-white really is what’s needed lest we flounder in inaction.
I don’t think your 'murder is always wrong" claim is fundamentally bad, both given the definition of murder and what you’re wanting to discuss - but I do think that’s only going to be good insofar as it motivates an action in someone which is, to the best of their knowledge, a good action.
Otherwise, grey thinking is definitely needed. Black and white thinking is why several people on both sides of politics are (untimely)dead in recent months.
What you’re referring to is often highlighted as an inadequate conceptualisation. It’s generally called binary thinking or dualistic thinking. Richard Rohr, a radical priest, has been banging on about its inadequacies for many years.
Rohr argues that dualistic thinking divides the world into rigid opposites: good and bad, us and them, which he sees as an immature stage of spiritual development. He believes this either–or mindset leads to judgment, exclusion, and moral superiority. Rohr proposes “nondual” thinking instead, which holds tension and complexity without collapsing everything into simple binaries.
I agree that Black versus White thinking is the basis for most of the world’s social problems. For example, in the US, our oppositional politics sets Conservatives against Liberals, as-if the categorical labels fit specific persons. Such Us vs Them (two value) categories typically result in War : Allies vs Nazis ; Aryans vs Jews. Yet, in wars such clear discriminations fade into the fog of war.
On the old TPF forum, some philosophical dialogs tended to digress into political debates. For example, between Materialism & Spiritualism ; Realism & Idealism. I suspect that Plato set the standard for Good-vs-Evil arguments in his criticism of Sophists who he thought practiced Moral Relativism*1. IMHO philosophical dialogs should be critical, but broad-minded. After all, even philosophical “Principles”, including mine below, are debatable, not engraved in stone.
Millennia of human history reveal that “choosing sides” — Us vs Them, True vs False, Ideal vs Real — seldom leads to Utopia ; more often to ongoing conflict. I’m not recommending tepid “grey thinking” though, but what I call BothAnd philosophizing*2. It advises restraining prejudices long enough to look at both sides of any argument.
In 1787, when the American constitutional convention was deadlocked by Black vs White thinking, Benjamin Franklin “urged delegates to “doubt a little of his own infallibility” and sign the Constitution despite individual reservations, arguing that unanimous support was necessary for the nation’s success. He noted that when a group of men assembles, “their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views” are inevitable”.
*1. Moral relativismis the meta-ethical theory that moral judgments are not objectively true or universally applicable, but are instead relative to individual, cultural, or situationalcontexts. It denies absolute standards, holding that right and wrong depend on local traditions or personal viewpoints, fostering tolerance but facing criticism regarding moral progress.
*2. Both/And Principle : My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole.Conflictsbetween parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into thecontextof a whole system.
The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to offset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. Analysis into parts is necessary for knowledge of the mechanics of the world, but synthesis of those parts into a whole system is required for the wisdom to integrate the self into the larger system. In a philosophical sense, all opposites in this world (e.g. space/time, good/evil) are ultimately reconciled in Enfernity (eternity & infinity).
Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein’s theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn’t change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose.
This principle is also similar to the concept of Superposition in sub-atomic physics. In this ambiguous state a particle has no fixed identity until “observed” by an outside system. For example, in a Quantum Computer, a Qubit has a value of all possible fractions between 1 & 0. Therefore, you could say that it is both 1 and 0. Glossary 1 - Being . . . . BothAnd
I haven’t interacted with any professors on this issue. I’ve read a few articles on it though.
I have to agree though that binary thinking is problematic; as Bohr once replied to Einstein’s, “Alas our theory is too poor for reality”, with “No, reality is too rich for our theory” (Please doublecheck this exchange as I got it from some book/paper about 2 decades backwards and people are prone to make wild claims).
Notably and to my relief mathematics can bear down on the problem. Spectral aspects of our world can be mapped to the continuum of real numbers; I recall ticking the very happy box on a happiness survey. However the same doesn’t apply to mathematical axioms/theorems, but I suspect this is from a lack of trying and not because math is inherently binary.
People shouldn’t be expected to express agreement with things they don’t fully believe in. I don’t think it’s possible to ever truly remain neutral because if you aren’t directly making your own decisions then there’s no shortage of people who are willing to step up and choose for you. When people don’t exercise accountability then it inevitably creates confusion because eventually people will want to know why they’re suffering and if no one is willing to answer for it then everyone suffers more.
Chinese logic, as some seem to have discovered, is known for its holism. Yin-yang complementarity recognizes the duality of opposites but also affirms their coexistent harmony.
There’s a similar 70’s trope, popularized by Star Wars, of light and dark sides. The entire saga, from start to end, is embedded in this duality.
Chinese logic never came into its own, like how Western logic bloomed in the hands of Aristotle, Chrysippus, Frege, et al. It’s main objectives were practicality, harmony, and accord with ancestors. Known for its flexibility and tolerance and even promotion of grey-thinking, Chinese logic could handle stuff Western logic dismissed as bizarre nonsense.
It’s intriguing that Leibniz prefigured computational binary logic after studying the I Ching (The book of changes), a Chinese divination text. The I Ching has 64 hexagrams, has a very simple 1/0 or on/off or yes/no structure to it. The book was very popular, having graced the shelves of famous Swiss psychologist Carl Jung’s personal library. Einstein, Jung’s collaborator on parapsychological projects, visited China at least one time. I’m sure Jung was very moved by what Einstein had to say about his travels there.
That amounts to establishing whether or not a particular case counts as murder. If it does then it thereby counts as being unjustified or, in other words, unjust.
Chinese logic is also, I forgot to mention, context-sensitive. Juridical/moral dilemmas can be highly nuanced and binary thinking will fail to deliver. I recall an old gedanken experiment about a poor man stealing medicine for his sick wife. How should we judge the actions of this man?
I had the honor of meeting lawyers and judges and somewhere in discussions with them something caught my eye. It seems that some penalties are ranged i.e. a person may be fined USD 20000 - USD 100000 and this, IMHO, indicates an awareness of the subtleties of reality, enabling judges to fine-tune their decisions, giving them the much desired, non-binary, spectral quality.
That’s better than just casting context aside altogether, in my opinion. This is probably just because of my upbringing but I can’t stand how the concept of money is applied to a majority of existing situations. They require people to fill out a form so that they can attempt to track your income, and that’ll go so far but it seems arbitrary when you consider a job is just a performance for money. Anyone can do it, most people do. By that logic anyone can pay a fine and that completes an action but life is a series of mild inconveniences so if a person doesn’t make the choice to address their moral involvement in the situation then what’s to stop the situation from recurring? Imprisonment doesn’t make any sense as a “solution” if no effort is going to be made to address the underlying causes. That’s not to say people shouldn’t face any sort of consequence as a response to a crime or perceived moral wrongdoing, my entire issue overall is that if the consequence doesn’t address the actual problem that caused it in the first place then it’s all a waste of time and I can’t stand how it’s constantly sensationalized.
My point was precisely that really. We cannot delineate between murder and justified killing. Simply saying ‘murder’ is ‘unjust killing’ doe snot tell us when killing is just.
Besides this I would also contend that perhaps there is another problem too. Someone can purposefully kill someone innocent and understand that such is ‘murder’ but they can be justified in doing so if they have a higher aim and are willing to suffer the consequences of their actions.
One example would be someone knowing someone wants to kill children and is likley to do so soon. You have children in the area and cannot watch them all the time. You may feel justified in killing this person if the authorities do nothing to remove this threat.
So, you ‘murder’ someone for a ‘just’ reason. To make this point hit home harder, maybe the threat the person poses is non-fatal, but the only means of preventing them causing non-fatal harm is to ‘murder’ them.
Killing people, being almost always considered, does not make it always ‘bad’. Murder is just a placeholder that makes people feel better/worse about some act of killing.
In war is killing ‘murder’? If not why not? How is one justified in killing a complete stranger. This is not black and white as far as I can see. I have opinions on the reasoning of such arguments but they are far from rigid.
