My Critique of The Ontological Argument

         Saint Anselm of Canterbury is well-known for his ontological argument, one of the most popular arguments for the existence of God. According to Anselm, God is defined as “something than which nothing greater can be thought” ​(Anselm 270)​. He starts with the premise that things are greater if they exist not only in understanding, but also in reality. Therefore, if God is something than which nothing greater can be thought, then that must mean He exists in reality. If He existed only in the understanding, then “it could be thought to exist also in reality – something which is greater [than existing only in the understanding]” ​(Anselm 271)​. To put it another way, imagine if we took everything in the universe and lined them up in order of greatness. At one end of the spectrum would be the least great thing, and at the other would be the greatest. That greatest thing is God. We may not know what that greatest thing is, but we know that it is out there – like how we know there is a fastest runner, even if we cannot name them. To its credit, the argument is straightforward and valid in its structure, but it has always struck me as an odd demonstration of something’s existence. After deeply reflecting on it, I have some greater clarity on the logical problems that it contains.  

My first line of thinking was inspired by Plato’s Euthyphro Dilemma, which asks the following question: Are things pious because the gods command them, or do the gods command them because they are pious? The idea is that this question presents a double-edged sword; if things are pious because the gods command them, then that means piety is arbitrary and is logically equivalent to what the gods command. It leads to the tautological conclusion that the gods command what they command. On the other hand, if the gods command them because they are pious, then that means there is something out of their control. They do not decide what is right or wrong, which is problematic if one believes in omnipotent deities. Applying this logic to Anselm, I would revise Plato’s original question: Is God responsible for determining what greatness is, or is He not? If God is responsible for determining the meaning of “greatness”, then that means He is the “greatest” thing by standards that He created. On the other hand, if He is not responsible for it, then that means there are some things outside of God’s control – in this case, what constitutes as something “great”. This is a problem if one wants to use this argument to justify their belief in an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God. However, if they find it satisfactory to say that God exists without adding any additional qualities, then it may be adequate. Although, I wonder whether Anselm would have been satisfied believing in a God without any known attributes.  

Additionally, Anselm’s definition seems to imply that our thinking about God causes His existence. If this is true, then that implies that we are, in some sense, more powerful than God. If God’s existence depends on our ability to think, then this would seem to limit the idea of an omnipotent deity. On the other hand, if He exists regardless of our thinking about Him, then Anselm’s explanation of God isn’t a definition, but rather a quality. To illustrate this point, imagine if we lined up all things in the universe according to size, with atoms on one end and stars and black holes on the other. We could say that celestial objects are the largest things in the universe, but this would be an inadequate definition. Stars, for instance, are large spheres of hot gas and dust. Size is certainly a component, but it is not all that a star is. Likewise, I could say that my cell phone is something that exists both in the mind and in reality. This is a true statement about my phone, but it is not a proper definition. The ontological status of an object shouldn’t depend on whether we are able to think about the thing in question (except maybe thoughts), especially an all-powerful deity. However, if this is the case, then saying that God is “something than which nothing greater can be thought” is insufficient. This is a quality of God, but not a definition.  

Another problem I have with Anselm’s argument is his reluctance to define “greatness”. When Anselm says that God is “something than which nothing greater can be thought”, I doubt that he is referring to size. I also don’t believe that he is talking about moral greatness – that is, things are better morally if they exist in reality. The only thing that seems to be consistent with his writings is ontological status – the idea that “greater” things are, by definition, things that exist in reality and not only in the understanding. A proper synonym might be Aristotle’s notion of “actuality”. To Aristotle, “potentiality” refers to the capacity or chance for something to occur, while “actuality” refers to the thing actually happening. Anything that is “greater” is actualized because it fulfills its role better than potentiality. In the same way that an actualized flower is “greater” than a potential flower, and an actualized knife is “greater” than a potential knife, an actualized God is “greater” than a potential God. Unfortunately, the only thing we can say about a God under this definition of “greatness” is that He exists. Similar to the problems explained earlier, this does not give us any indication about God’s qualities. God exists, but we still cannot say for sure what God is. Furthermore, it appears that if we want to consider God “greater” than the flower or the knife, then we must say that God’s “greatness” has to do with His actualization of “godliness”. In other words, saying that God is the “greatest thing” is the same thing as saying that God is the most “God-like” thing. This is clearly tautological, and it may be the basis for many critics’ claims that Anselm’s argument is circular.  

Why does it matter if we cannot say anything about God, other than the fact that He exists? Shouldn’t that be enough? The issue is that many people, including those who find Anselm’s argument convincing, think of God as an interfering agent. He changes the course of events to fit His “plan” and reaches out to those who call for help. However, this is not supported by the ontological argument. Neither is the less demanding claim of deism – that God created the universe and then left it to its own devices. We cannot say, at least from this line of reasoning, that God is the basis for the existence of everything, nor can we say that He has a moral code for us to follow. He might care about us and other forms of life, or He might not, either because He is nonchalant or because He doesn’t have consciousness at all. We don’t know if God is made of matter or not; we don’t know if He is sensible or intelligible, or whether the dichotomy even applies to Him (as other medieval philosophers such as Pseudo-Dionysius have pointed out). It seems strange, based on the ontological argument alone, to dedicate significant time and resources towards the adoration or even worship of this supposed deity. For all we know, “God” is an asteroid in the middle of space, floating about helplessly with no will or intent. There may be other arguments that show God’s other qualities – goodness, knowledge, wisdom, power, justice, etc. – but this one simply isn’t enough to justify any traditional notions of theism.  

To illustrate this point better, let’s return to the analogy of the fastest runner. As previously mentioned, we may not know who the fastest runner in the world is (at least I don’t), but we can rationally believe that such a person exists. What would be irrational is to suggest that we can know anything else about this person. We cannot say that they do or do not like junk food, television shows, or reading. We cannot say what country they are from, what their nationality is, or how much money they have. We cannot even say things about them that might seem obvious, like that they have two legs and train every day. Although I know little about sports, I am aware that some athletes wear prosthetic limbs or take cheat days once per week. It’s not even entirely clear that they like running; it is easy to imagine someone who runs to earn money for their family or to maintain a healthy body, not solely for pleasure. A quick search on the Internet may answer some of these questions, but my point is that the argument alone that a “fastest runner” must exist doesn’t tell us anything about such a person. Likewise, an argument demonstrating the existence of a “greatest thing” doesn’t tell us anything else about it.  

It appears that Anselm’s argument, while valid in structure and easy to understand, does not tell us anything about God besides the fact that He exists. There is a “greatest thing” out there somewhere, but we don’t know what its attributes or capabilities are. It may be significantly different from most people’s notion of a personal deity with a plan for the universe and an afterlife waiting for us. The more credit we give to Anselm and the stronger we make the argument sound, the less we are able to say about this God in question.  

 

 

 

 

​​Works Cited 

​Anselm. "Proslogion." Foltz, Bruce V. Medieval Philosophy: A Multicultural Reader. Bloomsbury Academic, 2019. 

​​ 

 

Why I Am a Feminist

Growing up, I was told that the story of America is one about the individual. As our national motto says, E Pluribus Unum - out of many, one. It is a place that has grown and benefited from a “melting pot” of various cultures. It is somewhere anyone can come, regardless of how strangely they may appear or act, and challenge the established order when its problems have been revealed. It may not have stuck to this reputation with perfection throughout its history, but I still believe this idea of individual flourishing to be the American spirit. So, of course, feminism is naturally appealing to me. The idea that one’s gender, which a person has no control over, should determine how society perceives them and what roles are available to them, seems baffling to me.  

Taking Finlayson’s definition, I will consider “feminism” as follows: “Feminism has two basic components. First, it recognizes or posits a fact: the fact of patriarchy. Second, it opposes the state of affairs represented by that fact” ​(Finlayson 6)​. The “patriarchy” is a system that is designed specifically to benefit men and oppress women. This does not mean that each individual man is prosperous or that each individual woman faces intense hardship. However, there are significant enough trends in the population to reasonably conclude that gender does have a significant impact on the quality of life. I also agree with the normative component that gender shouldn’t have such a significant impact on the quality of life, so I am a feminist by this definition.  

To make my case, I will address each half of Finlayson’s explanation of feminism. Later, I will explain why a patriarchy, if it exists, should be opposed on moral grounds. Before that, however, I will use empirical evidence to show how, even in the modern day, there is indeed a patriarchy in the United States (I will focus on the U.S. since this is where I live and where I was raised). We know, for example, that there is a wage gap between men and women. Some say that this is untrue after accounting for things like parenting and career choices, but the data says otherwise. One study by Meara, Pastore, and Webster estimated the gender pay gap in the U.S. using several different matching estimators. They found that using these estimators “provide a stronger basis for controlling for heterogeneity. In a sense, they provide more reassurance that the ‘unexplained’ gender pay gap is in fact not explained by observable characteristics such as part-time working or parenthood” ​(Meara, Pastore and Webster)​. That is, even when accounting for factors that critics might introduce when talking about the subject, a gender pay gap still exists – about 15% between October 2017 to March 2018. Another article by Sky Ariella from Zippia, a website that helps people make career decisions, gives statistics about corporate workplaces. According to her, “Women represent 58.4% of the U.S. workforce as of September 2022 but only held 35% of senior leadership positions” ​(Ariella)​. Proportionally, women are much less prevalent than men as Fortune 500 CEOs, doctors, lawyers, top management positions, and politicians. If such a great disparity was present in only one or two industries, perhaps we should keep our minds open to the possibility that it was an accident – a coincidence of thousands of individual choices serving social scientists a red herring. However, the fact that such overwhelming gender disparities exist in all these powerful positions simultaneously is unnerving to say the least. Technically, it could all be coincidental, but the more likely explanation is that society has been structured to make it more difficult for women to end up in these high-status, impactful roles.  

Economics is my bread and butter, but women face unequal social expectations as well. Chimimanda Ngozi Adichie, a Nigerian writer, eloquently draws out the differences in the social upbringing between boys and girls: “We teach boys to be afraid of fear, of weakness, of vulnerability. We teach them to mask their true selves, because they have to be, in Nigerian-speak, a hard man…. And then we do a much greater disservice to girls, because we raise them to cater to the fragile egos of males. We teach girls to shrink themselves, to make themselves smaller” ​(Adichie 26-27)​. There are, of course, individual boys who grow up to be humble and comfortable with vulnerability, and there are girls who grow up to be assertive and brutally honest. Unfortunately, the expectations based on gender are still prevalent enough that they lead to both men and women who feel they have to hide their true selves. In extreme cases, this leads to tragic outcomes. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 1999, “Male offending [of violent crime] equals about 1 violent offender for every 9 males age 10 or older, a per capita rate 6 times that of women” ​(Greenfeld and Snell 1)​. Pamela Aronson, a sociologist from Michigan State University, interviewed dozens of women about their views on feminism. In one part of the interview, she asked specifically about gender discrimination and found that “although only a small proportion of the interviewees felt that they had experienced blatant gender discrimination, most of the women had known it in minor ways and expressed some concern about it in the future” ​(Aronson 912)​. Due to the arbitrary association between “women” and “vulnerability”, and between “men” and “stoic”, we have created a society in which men do not know how to properly address their emotions and ask for help. We have also raised generations of women who are uncomfortable saying no to men. Again, these are not universal rules, but they are general trends supported by the data. The result is that men release their frustration in violent ways while women become the primary victims of crimes such as domestic abuse, sexual assault, and rape. Social expectations may be arbitrary, but they have real implications.  

By now, I hope that I have sufficiently demonstrated the existence of the patriarchy. As we have seen, men tend to occupy high positions of power while women are statistically vulnerable to domestic and sexual abuse. However, this only covers one half of Finlayson’s definition of feminism. The second half is an opposition to the patriarchy, so I will take a moment to explain why I disapprove of it. It may seem odd to think that this is a case that needs to be made, but a scarily high number of people still honestly believe that men and women should dominate different spheres of life – typically dividing the work so that men have most of the power in politics, legislation, medicine, business, and public life.  

One tactic I find useful in determining the fairness of a situation is John Rawls’ veil of ignorance. It goes roughly as follows: imagine you are given the job to design a new society. You get to determine who gets what resources and how much; you say who does what kind of work; you choose the rights and duties assigned to each citizen and the punishment for breaking the law. Once you are satisfied with your design, you will enter the new society you have crafted. There is only one catch: you don’t know whose position you will have once you enter. You don’t know if you will be rich or poor, man or woman, healthy or sick, or ignorant or intelligent. Your background and identity will be random, and you will be subject to the rules that you have drafted behind your “veil of ignorance”. Once you enter, there is no turning back. You will be stuck in your position with the laws you have dictated. How would you design such a society?  

Rawls thought that our ignorance about our position in society would ensure that our biases wouldn’t cause us to mistreat any group too harshly since, once we entered, we may find ourselves in the unprivileged group. The result would be a more fair, just, and equitable society that treats everyone with basic respect. It is the same rationale as when a mother tells one child to cut the cake but gives the second child the right to choose the first piece. As a result, the first child will try much harder to cut the cake into two equal sizes. One analysis of Rawls’ thought experiment elaborates that “Two primary principles supplement Rawls’ veil of ignorance: the liberty principle and the difference principle. According to the liberty principle, the social contract should try to ensure that everyone enjoys the maximum liberty possible without intruding upon the freedom of others. According to the difference principle, the social contract should guarantee everyone an equal opportunity to prosper” ​(McCombs School of Business)​. These principles seem intuitive; if you were behind the veil of ignorance, and you knew that there is a chance that you could end up in the group with the fewest rights or opportunities, then the rational, self-interested individual would design a society where everyone has equal rights. This would maximize your own chances of being able to live a happy, fulfilling life.  

Applying this to our modern society, the only moral conclusion from a Rawlsian point of view is to strongly oppose the patriarchy. If I were to be placed behind a veil of ignorance and asked to enter America without knowing what my gender would be, then of course I would take some extra time to ensure that the system was more equitable. This issue would be especially pressing considering that more than half of the U.S. population are women! If I decided to enter society as is, then it would actually be more likely that the patriarchy would oppress rather than benefit me. It would seem foolish to take that chance.  

Given the two components, it makes sense to call myself a feminist as Finlayson describes. I both recognize that the patriarchy exists and oppose it on philosophical grounds. I know that women make less money than men for similar work, even after accounting for factors such as parenthood and career choices. I know that women occupy far fewer positions of power than men. I know that men commit far more crime and that women are the predominant victims of sexual assault and gender discrimination, likely due to the socialization of boys and girls from a young age. I know that the Rawlsian position on such a system is crystal clear; it should be dismantled immediately. There is no way around it. I am a feminist. It’s the only rational conclusion.  

​​Works Cited 

​Adichie, Chimamanda Ngozi. We Should All Be Feminists . Anchor Books, 2015. 

​Ariella, Sky. "25 Women in Leadership Statistics [2023]: Facts on the Gender Gap in Corporate and Political Leadership." Zippia (2022). 

​Aronson, Pamela. "Feminists or "Postfeminists"?: Young Women's Attitudes toward Feminism and Gender Relations." Gender and Society (2003): 903-922. 

​Finlayson, Lorna. An Introduction to Feminism. Cambridge University Press , 2016. 

​Greenfeld, Lawrence A. and Tracy L. Snell. "Women Offenders." 1999. 

​McCombs School of Business. Veil of Ignorance. 2023. 25 January 2023. 

​Meara, Katie, Francesco Pastore and Allan Webster. "The gender pay gap in the USA: a matching study." Journal of Population Economics (2020): 271-305. 

​​