Posted by
Jack Fisher on Tuesday, May 19, 2009 2:23:56 PM
In any modern industrial culture, the value of objectivity often goes unnoticed. In politics, science, religion, philosophy, and economics it is an enormous challenge for anybody to separate themselves from their personal biases and address an issue rationally. Some say it is impossible. There is even evidence to support such an assertion. But objectivity is vital to the existance of a free society and the preservation of justice and knowledge.
Merriam-Webster dictionary has various definitions for objectivity, but the one with the most practical purpose is as follows:
"Expression or dealing with facts or conditions as percieved without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations."
This idea of separating one's self from one's biases is not new, but it lies at the heart of an enlightened society. It's easy to look at pre-modern cultures and see the lack of objectivity. Cultures like the Ancient Chinese, the Egyptians, and the Maya all believed their territories were domains under heavenly providence and all competing outsiders were barbarians. This cultural sophistry is almost universal and few individuals in their society dared question it. Those that stood out such as Plato, Gottlob Frege, and Immanuel Kant had to make a tough sell. Few are willing to embrace something that is devoid of personal feeling or passion. But that is exactly why it is so important because often it is personal feeling and passion that gets in the way of rational discourse.
Take the most recent example in the news. On May 18th, 2009 President Barack Obama gave the commencement speech at Notre Dame University. The controversy stemmed from the issue of abortion. Norte Dame, being staunchly Catholic, has a strong pro-life crowd. In contrast, Barack Obama has a strong pro-choice record. This disconnect roused many passions. The Associated Press reported one protester demanded "Stop killing our children!" It is a common reaction on an issue as emotional as abortion. Pro-lifers are roused by the idea of abortion ending a human life. Pro-choice advocates are roused by the idea of reproductive freedom, allowing women to choose whether or not they are going to become mothers. It is difficult not to let bias cloud judgment. An objective approach would look at the pragmatic aspect of the debate. Should the state have the power to determine the fate of an unborn child or should the mother?
Objectivity is also a vital component of science. No study or experiment can be valid without it. That is why scientists go to great lengths to elimiate human error, using tricks like the double blind study and putting as much data gathering in the hands of machines as possible. It eliminates the possibility of a scientists manipulating the data to support a preferred conclusion. This frequently shows itself in the debate between creationism and evolution, where the creationists operate on a strict bias of religion and reject any objective approach that may counteract with their beliefs. This bias is even stated overty on creationists websites like AnswersInGenesis.org where they say in their own mission statement "if any evidence stands in conflict with the biblical worldview, then the biblical worldview must in turn take precedence."
That leads to religion, an area where objectivity is almost non-existant. Religion, being a deeply personal set of beliefs, is naturally opposed to objectivity because it deals in beliefs rather than truths. Beliefs, unlike truths, cannot be proven or vindicated by an objective interpretation of the facts. It can only be assumed on faith. This is the case in conflicts such as the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, each of whome believe they have a valid claim on the holy land. They have no proof of this outside the ridged beliefs in their sacred scriptures, which are assumed on faith. Because of that, they can't prove themselves right or disproves their opponents wrong. Objectivity is impossible in such a debate, which is why rational discourse is so difficult.
In the current culture, objectivity is waning as people become more free to hear only the messages they want to hear. Conservatives will only listen to conservative messages and liberals will only listen to liberal messages and because of the internet and expanded choice they can do that, further reinforcing their bias notions. Few are willing to venture into areas where they would encounter people who would not agree with them. By doing so, they rob themselves of potentially greater understanding both of their views and that of their opponents. And when there is no understanding, there remains only fear and resentment.
Personally, I try my hardest to be objective in every issue. Whether I am writing a news piece or addressing an issue in a converstaion, I try to step back and ignore my own biases in hopes of providing a reasonable explanation. I also try not to restrict myself to one message. I talk to both liberal and conservative minds alike. Since I am also an atheist, I also seek out those who are ardent believers in hopes of furthering understanding. On this very site, I venture to blogs run by those who are strong believers in certain brands of Christianity. It to conflict at times, some of which gets ugly. But I continue to do it because objectivity to me is more important than avoiding new messages.
It is only when a free state where the rights of individuals are championed over that of state or church entities that objectivism can emerge and thrive. When men and women are free to ponder without fear of prejudice, persecution, or death they are free to reason. One of the strengths of objectivity is that it relies heavily on the weight of reason and evidence. That is why it had helped foster knowledge and understanding more than any emotionally or bias-driven pursuit ever has or ever will.