On Religion, Ethics, Descartes, and Woody Allen (unfinished draft)

There's been a recent pattern in my thoughts that I've noticed as of late, by way of two primary means: 1) observing my own comments on the topic of religion, when it comes up, and 2) trying to defend my unfaltering love for Woody Allen's films, pre-controversy and post-controversy alike.

The first cluster of thoughts, concerning the topic of religion, has to do with some ideas that I've been mulling over often enough to take notice. The result has been that I've become aware of a belief that I hold, simply through observing the fact that I defend that belief, without first being aware that it is a belief that I hold. Once I realize what I am defending, I have to ask myself what the implications of this belief may be, and whether I really could pit myself against the world in order to defend it. beliefs that I come to realize that I hold are, in my case, rarely discounted or dismissed upon discovery, for these beliefs that I seem to come to by way of the sum of a number of days of unconscious pondering (and according to Bertrand Russell, in his "The Conquest of Happiness", the unconscious mind can be assigned tasks to complete simply by thinking ardently about a specific topic for a given amount of time and then letting the unconscious mind do the rest of the work - a view of the unconscious that I much prefer to those that attribute to it guilt and feelings of sin and guilty lust and the like), and for my unconscious mind to have been assigned a topic to focus on usually means, so it seems, that I have spent a great deal of time thinking about something pertaining to that topic in my conscious thoughts. I give these beliefs that I accidentally uncover in my own mind the respect that I believe they deserve, at least with regard to their consideration (and of course claiming veto-power over them if I deem them faulty), because if they surface in such a way, it seems likely that it has been the result of rigorous ponderings that I've done, consciously and unconsciously, as if my unconscious mind has put together a number of propositions into a system the outputs a belief or two: propositions that I consciously hold to be true, resulting in beliefs that I wasn't even aware were so explicitly and logically implied by my beliefs, and the conjunction of these respective propositions, considered with regard to one-another. In other words, I form conscious and simple beliefs (I believe that P, etc.), and my mind constructs them as a writer might construct a paragraph, so that they form a larger, more significant, complex unconscious beliefs when put together. These unconscious beliefs are eventually presented to my conscious mind for dissection and consideration.

This belief is a bit unorthodox upon first consideration, and as such I am hesitant to put it in clear terms just yet, without first explaining my reasons for it. It has to do with the concept of "good" and "bad", about which much has been said (Nietzsche's Geneology of Morality, for instance), and it also pertains to Descartes' concept of the evil demon, who hypothetically deceives us into believing that we exist. Both philosophical works just mentioned have become tired at this point. I don't mean to say that they are useless (on the contrary, I think they're quite necessary); I mean simply that there isn't much that I could say about them that you haven't heard before.

That said, what I find most interesting about Descartes' "evil demon" is the fact that he's called "evil". Yes, it's prima facie quite a redundant and dull concept, but it's implications prove to be interesting. First of all, if we are not in fact living bodies, walking around earth, but are instead being deceived into thinking such (or, as Putnam suggests, if we are brains in vats), then there surely is no such thing as "evil". The word itself seems to suggest that the physical world is meaningful, and subsequently that what is done in the physical world has deeper, perhaps spiritual meaning. If the physical world is an illusion, then how is anything "evil"? By this token, we do not call a man evil just for playing a video game in which he shoots other human beings (say, an FBI-simulator or something of that sort). The fact that it is not reality is enough to render him innocent and morally astute. Why, then, are actions considered "evil" if the world, and all of said actions, is an illusion? The only other answer to that question seems to be that the fact that we THINK that it is real is enough to require that we act in a way that is "good" or "moral" or "ethical". Yet if there is doubt that it is real, is it really fair to hold the doubter to these standards? Obviously it is, unless the doubt is substantial, but Descartes seemed to believe that the doubt was substantial.

Then there is the question: If the demon is "evil" in deceiving us, why is God not considered "evil" if he supposedly created the universe and all things in it? Living in a world in which everything was created by an all-powerful being is not very different from living in a world in which everything was created by an "evil demon", especially since the world we are considering at this juncture is the world in which we actually live, and thus the word 'world', in discussion of the evil demon, refers the same world as in the context of religion. We can't say one or the other is evil or good because of any prevalence of evil or good things in the world, for there are the same amount of each in both cases, for we are talking about the same world: this world! There's also the response, often asserted, that "God is not a deceiver", but this, too, asserts that deception is a necessary "evil". First of all, I've already argued that "evil" and "good" seem hard to support in a world which is entirely illusory. And secondly, if there is nothing outside of this illusion, then it seems quite fortunate that each of us is being deceived by this "evil" demon, for I am sure I'm not the first to say that existence itself is quite interesting and exciting. This "evil" demon is providing, if Descartes is right, an otherwise-stagnant or otherwise-employed soul with something that, although perhaps not "real", is better than television. If it seems real, does it really matter if it's real? Isn't real simply, in some sense, what we think is real? If it's this or nothing, then I'd rather be deceived. And I see nothing evil about the fact that this "evil demon" is ostensibly giving my mind an occupation that is both interesting and enjoyable, and a body and tangible world to boot.

I've also been thinking a lot about concepts like demons, and devils, and "evil" figures in various religions. They seem to serve a necessary purpose: To teach individuals by way of example what is good, and to punish those who are bad. Say what you will about the latter (and I'll likely say the same), but the former seems necessary for the formation of the concept of "good". Nietzsche's covered the societal implications of this pretty thoroughly, so I won't get into it.

I usually steer clear of any discussion of ethics, in philosophy or elsewhere, mainly because my own views on the matter seem to be so contrary to the views of the majority. But the topic keeps coming up. Perhaps it's been on my mind.

On the next figurative shelf in the forefront of my mind is this issue of Woody Allen. I didn't even consider that I was expected to form an opinion on what he did or did not do in his personal life, but I've been forced to do so by way of being again and again grilled on the subject anytime I mention one of his films. People seem to be of the opinion that it was only "okay" for an individual to like his films before that individual became aware of the fact that he'd been sleeping with his much younger stepdaughter.

The main relevant facts of the matter are as follows:
1) Mia Farrow charged Woody Allen with an account of child molestation against his 7 yr. old daughter
2) The charges were dropped
3) Farrow's lawyer claimed that the prosecution had sufficient evidence to convict Allen, but that they were dropping the charges and withholding the evidence in order to protect Farrow's daughter
4) Woody Allen had multiple top-lawyers working in his defense
5) Farrow had recently discovered nude photographs of her adopted daughter on Woody Allen's mantle, which subsequently led her to discover that Woody Allen had been having an affair with her daughter, Soon-Yi, since she was in high school
6) Woody Allen admitted to #5, left Farrow, moved out, and proceeded to marry Soon-Yii

I'd rather not get into the logistics of the case itself, because frankly I don't think we can ever really know exactly what happened, but I'm of the opinion that the charges of molestation were unfounded, (perhaps) evidenced by the fact they were dropped for such vague reasons. Allen was, I think, denied custody of the child, but was not put behind bars.

That said, it seems to boil down to a discussion of the ethics of a man dating a girl very much his junior. The fact that she was his stepdaughter seems of little importance for several reasons: 1) She'd adopted Soon-Yi before she met Woody Allen, 2) Woody Allen and Mia Farrow were not married, and 3) Soon-Yi and Woody Allen began their sexual relationship after she had gone through puberty. 1) and 2) are of the most important. It is obvious that someone can serve a certain familial role without actually being conventionally of that kind, and if there is no blood relation than it is not incest. When it comes down to it, aside from the age issue, it seems that Woody Allen marrying Soon-Yi is not so different from a man dating someone he met while dating one of his exes, who was perhaps friends with his ex. The fact that he watched her grow up is (yes, a bit creepy) not a convincing argument, because many people of the same age meet in childhood, watch one-another grow up, and then date or marry. The fact that Woody Allen did not molest her while she was a child or before she could consent to it makes his case, for all intents and purposes, not much different.

No one has a right to judge what should or shouldn't be the cause of happiness between two individuals. People have a right to consent to actions or not; and there are ways to prosecute individuals who impose upon the rights and autonomy of others. If Soon-Yi hadn't wanted it, she likely wouldn't have remained in wedlock with him for all this time, and she would have sought legal or police aid. She didn't, and they both seem happy, and that should be all that matters to us.

It wasn't any of this about which I was really very concerned. It was the fact that so many people seemed eager to discredit his vast body of art because of these personal actions. Following a long debate with a friend about the matter, I came home and jotted down the following notes...

Things that I would like to remember to consider if ever I write a more in-depth article on this matter:

-Moral relativism as an important issue for cultural consideration
-Separating character of individual from morals espoused by their art
-Difference between what the artist chooses to present as art, and what unfairly becomes considered in juxtaposition with his art when his personal life is exploited
-Should the knowledge that the artist's personal life may be public affect his choices in his personal life?
-Hitler and Charles Manson are not good examples of bad people whose immorality discredited their art, because their art itself was not considered "good" by a general public consensus
-Value of personal liberty & the right to happiness
-Value of subjective interest in a work of art
-pertinent questions RAISED by the work of art
-Horrible human beings who produced good art, and the importance in noting that their art remains influential
-Value comes from the art, not the person
-Artist makes conscious choice as to what views to present in his art and what views to exclude
-Does the individual have an obligation to act morally to a greater degree if he is in the public eye?
-Does his life become part of his art?
-If he is a bad person, but his art raises relevant questions, is it still valid?
-Is this ENOUGH to make him a good person?
-Utilitarianism: The people who gain from Woody Allen's art (laughter and happiness) amount to more than the people who are hurt by the choices he made in his personal life (being offended is not the same as being hurt, and is more a sign of close-mindedness than anything else, especially if the offense is great, because an individual should have enough going on in his own life to ignore actions of others unless they directly hurt someone or affect the individual in question)
-This doesn't support Bush's actions (even if politics are considered art, as was suggested by someone with whom I was debating) because, even if politics can be considered art, then Bush is either just the brush itself, with which his cronies are making art, or he is simply BAD ART. Furthermore, that which Bush PUBLICLY espouses is, to a logical mind, not positive.
-Does creating good art require an individual to sacrifice good in his personal life?
-Woody Allen criticizes/ jokes about pedophilia in his art (e.g., Bananas), and thus his art actively attempts to discourage the act, saying it is inherently bad, or evil (I forget the direct quote)
-Roman Polanski
-Bush example actually argues the OPPOSITE of my point (happy home life = not defamed), (unfavorable publicly-espoused views)
-If it makes Woody Allen and Soon-Yi happy, that should be reason enough
-Into him for his money? Does it matter? Seems unlikely, because she already had access to it anyway, being his stepdaughter.
-Anyhow, if money is what makes someone happy (or if it's what they think will make them happy), who's to say they should be denied that attempt at happiness? It's their own mistake.
-Woody's films point out the error of the individual
-And how human fault can lead to the individual being used as a tool for manipulation for various political or social ends


I don't have time to rehash my thoughts on this matter at the moment, but I've been surprised as of late how contrary my own views on personal liberties, morality, social norms, and the like seem to be to the rest of society's views. Sure, there are definite instances of abuse, or immorality, or things that are just plain wrong; but on borderline instances, it seems that these things should be looked at case-to-case. The bottom line is that none of us can pretend to understand what someone else's motives are, or what makes someone else happy, or what someone else might need. God knows that real, genuine love seems to be rare enough that we should rejoice when it is found by two individuals, even in such strange circumstances. The good that such a thing puts into the world is no doubt of more essence than the bad that the same thing puts into the world, for the latter is mostly in the form of judgment, and in that sense it is "bad" not on Woody Allen's part, for he is putting out very little negative energy himself. Rather, the "bad" is mostly on the part of the public. Negative judgment and worry concerning someone else's life seems to be a waste of energy, and seems to be nothing BUT negative.

My main point being? We would do well to pretend that words like "good" and "bad" are not part of our respective vernaculars while talking about other peoples' actions and while judging the ethical value of situations or scenarios. They serve only as scapegoats, red-herrings, or substitutions for actual valid arguments. Even those cases that are obviously "good" in the truest sense probably should not be referred to as such, so that such words are not used inaccurately, unfairly, by default, or for lack of more relevant things to say, at least in borderline cases.

My other main point being? Any kind of art that provides enjoyment, encourages happiness, incites laughter, and raises relevant social, ethical, intellectual, and political questions at the same time is relevant, regardless of the personal character of the creator. It is my opinion that, if someone is able to create work that does all of these things, chances are that he means well even in his personal life. The act of raising a whole slew of important questions is quite commendable, and I don't mean this in a Socratic sense. I think we should seek to raise a multitude of questions for consideration on all kinds of topics, whether or not answers are at hand or even possible. I don't think we should necessarily seek to prove that other individuals don't know anything, at least not in an aggressive and insulting manner (because what's productive in that?), but I do think we should question what each of us thinks we know. What matters is that it's not our business. It's Woody, Mia, and Soon-Yi's business, respectively. In my opinion, and I think fairly so, once the youngest party has reached a certain age (e.g., the age of consent), the age-difference issue is entirely subjective and should be considered case-by-case.

From another standpoint, if the personal life of Woody Allen is arguably considered PART OF his art, it STILL succeeds in bringing relevant issues and questions to the forefront; humor, even. As could perhaps have been anticipated, the humor is found in the over-the-top nature of peoples' reactions to the situation more than it is found anywhere else. Even if Woody's actions can be dubbed "wrong" (and I take issue with the very suggestion of this), they still cause a dialogue, and so long as nobody was hurt in the process in a SUBSTANTIAL way (I'm not condoning murder for the sake of causing a dialogue), this is positive.

Someone do us all a favor and throw words like "good" and "evil" out the window. Until you do, I'll just say that I think the most "evil" individuals are those most eager to pin the "good" or "evil" label on other human beings whose situations they know nothing about; George W. Bush, for example. It seems a pretty obvious red-flag indicating that that particular person is probably unwilling to take responsibility for his own actions or even consider the repercussions of said actions.