Why do we believe what we believe – and how do we know we believe it? This may sound overly simplistic, and I certainly do not intend for this to cause offense, but merely wish to state clearly that which is on my mind. In short, there are things which are both complex and complicated. These things require knowledge to form a position, or to verify that the positions we have already identified in ourselves are valid ones. And to that purpose, in steps a philosopher.
Epistemology is a philosophical process. It is the investigation of the foundations of our beliefs to determine if they are justified ones, or rather just opinions we have elevated to moral certainties. Epistemology comes from two Greek words “episteme” (knowledge) and “logos” (reason). There exist a plethora of matters where your answer is instinctively known to you. To explain to others how or why you came to your answer; however, that is the rub. That is also the step where we are most known to fudge a little because while it is most certainly hard to be honest with other people, it is often hardest to be honest with ourselves. To be honest with ourselves we have to decide whether the pool of knowledge upon which we have based our opinions is a valid foundation. If we are to do that honestly, we have to answer these questions about our knowledge: what does it truly mean to know anything, how much can any human being know, and what does the sum of human knowledge look like?
There are different kinds of knowledge. When a philosopher uses the word knowledge he or she strictly means that you know something is factually true. This is called factive knowledge. You know the Earth is round – or you should anyway. You can factively know how to perform or accomplish a task, such as how to bake biscuits (procedural knowledge). Or, you can factively know a human being, such as knowing your cousin James. You can factively know all kinds of things that are of no concern to a serious philosopher.
What an Epistemologist wants to know, study, and express, is called propositional knowledge. Propositional knowledge is something that describes, or purports to describe, what is in a declarative manner. For example, George W. Bush is a Republican; the Earth is round; it is immoral to value one human life more than another; it is unethical to separate children from their parents.
What kind of knowledge is required for ethical decisions? If you are a person of faith and are asked if you believe in God, your answer is easily come by: yes. If asked why or to otherwise discuss the intricacies of your faith, you would gladly concede that it is a complex matter. You would struggle in a discussion with the non-believer to prove that you have a justified basis for your belief system. Whether you love your spouse, whether you are for or against the death penalty, how you believe we should treat the homeless, whether or not you’re a capitalist these are things you know, and they are expressions of your value system. The expression of this kind of knowledge is most valuable to politicians too, because they use it to seek to align themselves with your value expressions.
Epistemologists need to know whether the truth about a particular issue can or cannot be known by any human, or you, or all humans. Then they would need to know if, were it possible to know a truth, we do know that truth. Philosophers also need to know if knowledge can be obtained without experience, using only reason (a priori knowledge), or if one must experience a thing to know it (empirical knowledge). Epistemologists make this determination by looking at three conditions: Belief, Truth; and Justification. This is how they examine and know whether you or I know something.
This is not meant to be an overly technical philosophical examination of the basis of ethical decision-making, but merely intended to reframe how we view the various debates we engage in when we are in a socio-political sphere. There is, of course, a branch of Epistemology that asks how a group can know something and how it acquires knowledge. But, for today’s purposes, we will just look at the conditions for knowledge: Belief, Truth, and Justification.
The first condition notes that knowledge is a form of belief. If we do not think about something, we do not believe anything about it. If we do not believe anything about it, we do not possess any knowledge about it. I do not think about how men’s pants fit because I do not wear them. I have no opinions about the issue, I have not considered the issue, neither am I currently thinking about nor entertaining a position on the matter, and I have never done so. I know nothing about the fit of men’s pants because I believe nothing about men’s pants.
Taken to its logical conclusion we could assume that most people do not know anything about 90% of the public policy issues which make up the debates we watch our politicians undertake when they run for office. Most people do not go throughout their daily lives thinking about trade deficits or food stamp policy. But you know what they say about making assumptions.
You see, these beliefs you have in your head that you are actively working through or thinking about, those are only one kind of beliefs: occurrent beliefs. But most of our beliefs are non-occurrent beliefs. These are beliefs which exist somewhere in the static, bred through thousands of years of evolution and nurture. We as human beings are inherently tribal. For thousands of years, we existed and survived in groups as against other tribal groups. This American ideal of the melting pot where we can fight against our impulses to pit “us” v. “them,” is relatively new when measured against the sum total of human history. In our most secret hearts, we still make far too many of our decisions based on tribal instincts. Our tribe tells us what the answer is, how the other side is wrong – and we are all too happy to repeat that answer. Thinking critically can separate you from your social circle and it can thin you out from the herd. That is inherently dangerous. As part of this self-feeding cycle, we do not always reward critical and independent thought. Simultaneously, we do not value or provide people with, the two things they most need to think critically: time and knowledge. Instead, our background non-occurrent beliefs continue unchecked. That is where truth comes in.
You have to believe something to satisfy an Epistemologist’s first condition for knowledge, but that not enough on its own since you can believe something that is not true – lots of people do. The goal of any moral person is to try to amass a set of true beliefs, and discard those which are false. If you cannot satisfy the second condition of knowledge – Truth – you cannot know that thing. If you believe the Earth is flat you are incorrect. We can and do know that such a belief is not so. You cannot actually know the Earth is flat because to know such a thing is not possible in this sense. And if truth is subjective then no one can know anything.
But what if you believe something, and it is true, but you had no rational basis for it – can you really be said to know that thing? According to the third condition of Epistemology – Justification – you cannot. After all, of what good is that “knowledge” if you could not repeat the process to form knowledge again? For a belief you hold to be knowledge, it must be both true and rationally based. The most famous example of this is called the Gettier Problem. If the clock on my desk stopped working at 2:00 am last night, and I did not notice when I came into work, I might later in the day decide to look at it to determine what time I ought to leave for my 2:30 pm appointment. If I were, by pure chance, to look at the clock at 2:00 pm and see the clock flashing 2:00, I would presume it is time to leave and correctly, grab my stuff and walk out the door. But I did not have a rational basis for my true belief that it was 2:00 pm. If I had not looked up then, but instead looked up at 1:15 pm I would have seen the same thing and left early. If I had in the alternative looked up at 3:15 pm, I would have seen the same thing, left, and been very late. All three of these conditions: Belief, Truth, and Justification, must exist for there to be knowledge.
Unless you are a politician.
If you are a politician, you are not really concerned with why we believe what we believe, or if those beliefs are true – you are only interested in how those beliefs might be used to your benefit. There is no benefit in telling the electorate of today that those carefully considered beliefs they hold are untrue, that they; therefore, do not know anything. There is much value; however, in knowing what the electorate believes and believes they know. If you know their beliefs, it is easy to invoke and design reaction. When both sides participate in this unconsidered approach to knowledge, our public discourse devolves from that of an honest and well-intended marketplace of ideas, to a free-for-all that takes place in 180-character punches intended to anger and fear-monger. When our untrue beliefs are reinforced by those in power, it can make them feel true. And if they feel true, and we are told our tribe is reasonable, then they also feel justified, whether they are or not. Now our untrue beliefs have become two things: faux knowledge, and a campaign slogan.
Were a person interested in examples of such things, he or she might take a gander at Texas, where the Governor says he will no longer allow refugees to settle, and the political right does not even bat an eye. They know this is ethical and moral because they believe those people do not belong here, and they know it is true. This is obviously perfectly reasonable and consistent with their group position on legal vs. illegal immigration. Amongst themselves, their tribe’s motives no longer need to be questioned – it is clear from the “record” that they are right, well-meaning, and promoting The American Way™.
But how can that be? One of the most common refrains in the immigration debate that we hear from the far right is that they as a group are (and we as a society should also be) “ok” with immigrants, but only when they are legal. “We want legal immigrants,” they say, and, “We just cannot support any policy action that would incentivize people to keep coming here illegally!” They expect that all these great and unwashed masses should “Get In Line!™” Ah – but refugees already have – they are legal immigrants. Somehow, the political right knows that refugees do not belong in Texas, but also believe that legal immigrants belong, and that both such beliefs are true. But they cannot both be true. It would seem then, from the vantage point of intellectual consistency, this action and reaction alike expose the right’s long-held position on immigration reform as one based in racial enmity disguised as a concern for the Rule of Law. I’m not sure it will matter though, if no one cares about knowing, and only about believing.
Over the next few weeks we will cover different aspects of the immigration system, and whether we can know that something is, or is not, the “right thing to do.” No side will be completely blameless in this discussion. Diatribes ring hollow from those who are also complicit in inaction. Most of the harshest accusations of immorality, after all, will come from career politicians from the left who have, over decades of woke compassionate public service, done nothing to better the plight of those they claim to care about. But from all I’ve seen growing up on the border, and later practicing immigration law for 10 years, so many desperate people are being taken advantage of. Their plight gets worse and more desperate and we do not have a plan to fix it. What is more, we do not appear care if we have one. We almost do not even want a plan. Because if we had a plan, if we fixed it, how will we raise money for the election? How can we scare people? How can we prove we are morally superior if we have to first admit our beliefs must be true to know the answer?
If you are the one being talked about, not doing the talking (or the voting), there is little moral difference between Trump and Obama’s Congresses if neither one has helped you. The refugee crisis is not new, and it is not over. Racism against Hispanics and Latinos is a serious problem, but it did not start with the shooting in El Paso, or with Trump, or Obama. We have a compassion problem, and a love of money problem too. Which is worse you might ask – to openly declare racial enmity for a group of people, or to vow to help that group, and then refuse to do so in order that one might have the opportunity to campaign again in 2 years on something solid? The ticket to re-election, after all, is not owning the solution, but owning the promise. That I think, for the unaccompanied minors and families destroyed from excessive and pointless deportations, is a question of degree, not of culpability in general.
Plans are complicated – a lot more complicated than making money off the backs of society’s most vulnerable by running for-profit prisons camps masquerading as shelters. We are importing and exporting misery, and using it as a marketing tool. In the process, we have created a new form of slavery and slave trading. These illegal immigrants we banter about and judge live in our shadows – they have no rights, no recourse, and we get rich off their labor. In the meantime, no one has made the line shorter, or made more lines. We sure do love $4.00 a pound organic strawberries though. No one on either primary stage has made you one iota safer, and no one has helped these poor people – these “least of these.” No one has even bothered to try. Immigration reform is one of those things which is neither complex nor easy. But how we treat immigrants has an easy answer: we treat them as our neighbor, as we would want to be treated. Why? Because they are us. That is a belief, it is true, it is knowable, and can be justified rationally.
We have another belief we know to be true, that we like to say we arrived at after careful rational thought: that we all have God-given rights and that these rights do not come from government nor from our Constitution. Rather these are our natural rights, and our Constitution merely enshrines them. America, we know, is great because it recognizes that concept. There seems to be a new caveat however: non-Americans have fewer rights than we do. All animals are equal. Some animals are more equal than others.
These beliefs cannot be opposite each other and represent knowledge, because they cannot both be true, and cannot both be justified. If you believe both of those things, you do not know anything at all about who belongs here. Insofar as Texas has a governor who claims to be a Christian, but blocks refugee settlement – the settlement of LEGAL immigrants, we also can no longer pretend that we were ever really upset that they did not “Get In Line™ .” We do not have to pretend we were only against illegal immigration, because it can no longer be said to be a true belief. It is a dog whistle. It always was. It was always a way to make some animals more equal than others, and we are not fooling anyone anymore. Except maybe, ourselves.
