An Argument for Realism (The Beginning of a Reply to Nelson Goodman's Ways of Worldmaking)

If reality were socially constructed, or reducible to human constructions, this would be a possible way to conceive of certain human beings - in this case, Jewish human beings. If I have my truth and you have your truth, I could only say I don't like this; not that it was wrong and evil. If world versions were immune to falsification of reality - their being no independent, unconceptualized world to compare them to - then this image would be just as intellectually and morally valid as any other (in an objective sense). Reality would have nothing to say. 

. . .

Here I present an argument for robust realism in philosophy and morals.

     It is a commonplace: before we human beings can exploit or do violence a reduction or demeaning of the object of exploitation or violence must happen in our heads. For humans to justify exploitation or violence against another entity—whether it's a person, animal, or environment—they must first mentally diminish, dehumanize, or reduce that entity's value or worth.

Here are some examples, both morally central and less so.

 

·        Enslavers have often justified their actions by portraying enslaved people as inherently inferior, subhuman, or less than human. Terms like "savages" or "beasts" were used to make the enslaved seem less deserving of rights, freedom, or compassion. This mental reduction made it easier to justify cruel treatment.

·        As a prelude to war and part of its conduct opposing sides frequently use demeaning language, like calling the enemy "vermin," "monsters," or "barbarians"; or “gooks,” “infidels,” or “garlic eaters.”  This strips the enemy of their humanity and makes it psychologically easier for soldiers and civilians to support violence or atrocities against them.

·        To justify the mistreatment of animals in factory farms, they are often viewed as mere "products," "meat," or "resources" rather than living, feeling beings. Focusing only on their economic value makes it easier to ignore their suffering. I once toured a chicken slaughter factory – horrible – where the chickens were referred to as “units of production.”

·        Misogyny involves objectifying women, treating them as property or objects whose value is based on appearance, utility, or obedience. This reduction of women to objects or lesser beings makes it easier to justify violence, discrimination, or exploitation against them.

·        When capitalists refer to forests merely as "timber" or "resources," rather than, say, a wonderful part of Creation, it becomes easier to justify deforestation or pollution. The same goes for the sublime oceans being reduced to "fishing grounds" or "waste disposal sites" rather than critical components of the planet's health.

·        Employees – especially sweatshop workers –  are imagined as "human resources" or "cogs in the machine," reducing them to mere economic units rather than people with lives, families, and dreams. This mentality makes it easier to justify overworking, underpaying, or otherwise exploiting workers.

·        The homeless are often dehumanized by being called "bums," "drunks," or "vagrants," which reduces them to their circumstances and strips away their individuality and humanity. This reduction makes it easier for society to ignore their needs or justify a lack of empathy or support.

·        When one culture sees another as "primitive," "backward," or "uncivilized," it can justify the imposition of its own values, systems, and power structures, believing that it is "helping" or "saving" the supposedly inferior culture.

·        On the internet, people are often reduced to avatars, usernames, or opposing viewpoints ("trolls," "SJWs," "snowflakes," etc.), which can strip away their humanity and make it easier to engage in hostile or demeaning behavior that would be less likely face-to-face.

·        Certain groups being consistently omitted or underrepresented in media, literature, and history can diminish their perceived value and importance in the public consciousness. This exclusion makes it easier for their real-world issues to be ignored or for them to be treated as less significant in society. I am thinking, for instance, of how the daily heroism of many professions like nursing is covered up. There are no statues of nurses.

·        People with mental health conditions are often reduced to stereotypes like "crazy," "unstable," or "dangerous," which diminishes their complexity as human beings and can justify discrimination, exclusion, or neglect.

·        Older adults are sometimes reduced to being "senile," "burdens," or "past their prime," which devalues their contributions, wisdom, and needs. This reduction can lead to neglect, exclusion, or dismissive attitudes toward their rights and well-being.

·        When dealing with customer service representatives, people might think of them merely as "robots" or "tools" for solving problems rather than as individuals doing their jobs. This mindset can make it easier to be rude, impatient, or dismissive because the person is reduced to a role rather than seen as a fellow human being.

·        When someone cuts us off in traffic, we might think of them as "idiots," "jerks," or even just as the car they're driving rather than as a person who might be in a rush or having a bad day. Reducing them to a negative label or their vehicle makes it easier to justify our own anger or aggressive driving.

·        Reducing people to "cat people" or "dog people" – like J. D. Vance recently did – can make it easier to dismiss their preferences or personality traits as if they were entirely defined by and their lives demeaned through a single choice.

·        Family members may reduce one person to a "nag" when they repeatedly remind others to do chores, ignoring the fact that this person might just want a clean and organized space for everyone. This reduction can make it easier to dismiss their requests or feel justified in being annoyed.

·        Seeing someone dressed a certain way (like in sweatpants at a grocery store) and labeling them as "lazy" or "sloppy" without considering other contexts (like they might be coming from the gym, running an errand, or having a tough day). This reduction makes it easier to dismiss them or form unfair judgments about their character.

·        When discussing hobbies or interests, someone might reduce an entire group to a stereotype, such as calling all gamers "nerds" or all people who do yoga "hippies." This oversimplifies the diverse range of people within any group and can make it easier to disregard their individuality or dismiss their interests.

·        Sometimes parents or adults might reduce a child’s behavior to “just being a kid” or “throwing a tantrum,” dismissing the potential complexity behind their feelings, like tiredness, frustration, or a need for attention. This reduction can make it easier to ignore or not take their emotions seriously.

·        People might reduce tech support to “the help desk” and treat them as a faceless entity rather than individuals with their own skills and personalities. This mindset can lead to a lack of patience or respect in interactions.

·        Students might see their teachers simply as “homework-givers” or “test-makers,” reducing them to their role in the classroom and ignoring their efforts, motivations, and even their own frustrations or passions.

·        On social media, reducing someone to their most extreme opinion or a single post and dismissing them as “a troll” or “ignorant” rather than considering that they might have a range of beliefs or have been misunderstood. This makes it easier to argue, block, or dismiss without engaging in meaningful conversation.

·        When at a restaurant, reducing a waiter to simply “the server” without recognizing that they might be a student, an artist, or someone working another job. This mindset makes it easier to overlook their humanity or not consider the pressures they may face.

·        Referring to a colleague simply as “the intern” or “the new guy” rather than by their name or acknowledging their contributions can diminish their presence and make it easier to exclude them from conversations or decisions.

·        Referring to a neighbor as “that guy with the dog” or “the lady with the loud car” reduces them to a single characteristic, making it easier to feel annoyed or indifferent towards them without knowing their story or situation.

·        Dismissing someone’s behavior by saying “typical millennial” or “boomer talk” reduces complex individuals to generational stereotypes, which can make it easier to dismiss their viewpoints or opinions without truly understanding them.

 

This tendency permeates human behavior. I think, theologically speaking, it belongs to the essence of “sin.”

 

    When we become deeply familiar with others—whether they are people, animals, or even aspects of the environment—we begin to see their complexity, uniqueness, and inherent value. This deeper knowledge can make it much harder to engage in reductive, exploitative, or violent behavior because it becomes more difficult to dehumanize or dismiss them. Here in a brainstorming fashion are some examples of this:

·        Someone who has a close friend from a different racial or cultural background is less likely to accept or perpetuate stereotypes about that group. Knowing someone personally makes it harder to reduce a whole group to caricatures, as their friend serves as a vivid counterexample, humanizing the group in their eyes. I am grateful that I went to school and played sports with black schoolmates for this very reason. It was an essential part of my moral education.  Familiarity leads to empathy, understanding, and a recognition of individuality, making it difficult to dehumanize or apply simplistic labels.

·        A person who has raised a pet, like a dog or a cat, or who has spent time with animals in sanctuaries, will recognize that animals have personalities, emotions, and unique preferences. This awareness can make it much harder for them to justify animal cruelty, factory farming, or other forms of exploitation. Indeed, understanding an animal's unique traits and behaviors breaks down the idea of them as mere "objects" or "products," making cruelty seem more abhorrent. Again, being with the dogs and cats I was blessed with was an essential part of my moral education.

·        Someone who regularly hikes, gardens, or spends time studying ecosystems may develop a deeper respect for the environment. They are less likely to see a forest as "just timber" or a river as "just water" because they know how these ecosystems function, support life, and are interconnected with human well-being. Direct experiences with nature foster a sense of awe, respect, and understanding of the environment's complexity, making exploitation or destruction feel wrong. I had few – but precious – such experiences as a child. I have made up for that lack as an adult.

·        Working closely with colleagues of different genders, sexual orientations, abilities, or cultural backgrounds can reduce unconscious biases and prevent reductive thinking. Instead of seeing people through the lens of stereotypes, one begins to see them as individuals with their own unique talents, struggles, and personalities. Regular, positive interactions reduce prejudice and promote a culture of mutual respect and understanding, making discrimination or harassment less likely. Again, I was blessed to work in a hospital with many impressive women, making misogyny impossible for me.

·        A parent or caregiver who spends time with children learns to see beyond surface behavior (like tantrums or whining) to understand the underlying emotions, needs, and developmental stages. This familiarity makes it harder to dismiss a child's feelings or treat them unfairly. Seeing children as complex individuals with emotions and needs fosters patience and a deeper sense of responsibility and care. It has been a constant challenge to get to know my children better.

·        Someone who has lived in a foreign country or spent time immersing themselves in a different culture is less likely to see other cultures as "exotic" or "backward." Familiarity with daily life, customs, language, and social norms makes it harder to hold on to reductive stereotypes. Here I value my friendship as a student with Ann-Young Noh of Korea.

·        Learning about the history of other groups or engaging with literature from diverse perspectives can make it more difficult to accept simplistic narratives. For instance, someone who studies the history of indigenous peoples will find it hard to reduce them to just "primitive" or "ancient" stereotypes. In my case, I needed to understand Germans and Russians – Germans to overcome the bad-guy image of war movies, which for some reason I could not accept; Russians, because they were the official “enemy” of the Cold War, and I could not accept this either. Knowledge always adds depth, complexity, and context, which dismantles reductive or exploitative narratives and fosters a more profound understanding of social issues.

·        Being deeply involved in a local community (e.g., volunteering, participating in local events) makes it difficult to reduce people to categories like "the homeless," "the elderly," or "the poor." Knowing their stories, struggles, and contributions makes it harder to accept blanket judgments or systemic neglect. Perhaps I will do that when I retire. Familiarity breeds compassion, breaks down "us vs. them" mentalities, and fosters a sense of shared humanity and community responsibility.

·        Having a family member or close friend who belongs to a marginalized group (such as LGBTQ+, a disability community, or a religious minority) can prevent one from reducing that group to a stereotype. The personal connection makes it clear that each individual in the group has their own distinct identity and story. My niece has been my teacher here. Personal relationships challenge simplistic narratives, foster solidarity, and reduce prejudice through lived experience.

·        Teaching – I am a teacher –  can help one see beyond their initial impressions of competence, age, or background. You learn to see the mentee as a complex individual with potential and unique skills, making it harder to dismiss them based on initial biases. For example, I remember my engagement with a “Goth” student allowed me to see his humanity and understand how he got to where he was.

·        Someone who has personally experienced hardship (like poverty, illness, or discrimination) may be less likely to judge others going through similar challenges. They know firsthand that people are more than their circumstances and are less inclined to reduce others to labels like "lazy" or "weak." Personal experience breeds empathy, understanding, and the rejection of reductive judgments, promoting more compassionate behavior. That is perhaps why “the rich” have such a hard time “entering the kingdom of God” – having compassion for others, caring about justice, lacking mercy or truthfulness.

·        Reading novels, watching films, or engaging with art that depicts a wide range of human experiences can reduce one's tendency to think in stereotypes. For example, a powerful documentary or novel about refugees might make it harder to see refugees simply as a "problem" or "burden." Art and storytelling provide intimate insights into diverse lives, fostering compassion and understanding that makes it difficult to reduce people to mere labels. Well, my love of literature has been good for me.

 

. . .

 

There are different speculations about the origins or genesis of the human tendency to reduce others—whether people, animals, or environments—to justify exploitation or violence. Different sources of “original sin.”

• One perspective is that humans evolved certain psychological tendencies that helped our ancestors survive in environments where resources were scarce and competition was high. Reducing others to enemies, threats, or less important beings could have made it easier to compete for resources, protect one's group, and avoid dangers. By dehumanizing or reducing others, early humans might have been more willing to engage in necessary but morally difficult actions, like war, territorial defense, or even the extermination of rival groups. This tendency might have been adaptive in the context of survival and tribal conflict. [As I have read, studies of primate behavior, human tribal societies, and ancient human remains all show signs of intergroup conflict and the use of dehumanizing language or actions to prepare for or justify violence.]
• We have a strong innate tendency to form groups, creating a psychological distinction between "us" (ingroup) and "them" (outgroup). This can lead to "ingroup favoritism," where people show preference and empathy toward those perceived as part of their group, while devaluing, stereotyping, or dehumanizing those seen as outsiders. This tendency can be seen as a psychological mechanism for maintaining group cohesion, solidarity, and loyalty, which were essential for survival in early human societies. The downside is that it can also lead to prejudice, discrimination, and violence against outgroups. [Numerous psychological studies, such as the Robbers Cave Experiment, show how easily people can be divided into groups and begin to exhibit biased behavior. This dynamic can lead to stereotyping, discrimination, and even violence against those seen as different or outside the group.]
• The human brain uses cognitive shortcuts, or "heuristics," to quickly process information and make decisions. Reducing complex entities to simpler categories (e.g., "enemy," "prey," "danger") is a way to manage cognitive load and make quick judgments in situations where time or information is limited. While these shortcuts can be useful for survival (like quickly recognizing a predator), they also lead to oversimplifications and biases. This reductionist thinking can contribute to stereotyping, prejudice, and justifications for violence or exploitation. [Cognitive psychology research shows that people are prone to biases like the "fundamental attribution error," where they attribute others' actions to character flaws rather than circumstances. Stereotyping and "othering" are seen as examples of cognitive simplification. Or as Jesus put it long before cognitive science: “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”] 
• Human societies often perpetuate norms, ideologies, and cultural practices that support reductionist thinking to maintain social hierarchies, power dynamics, and resource control. For example, colonizers often portrayed colonized peoples as "savages" or "uncivilized" to justify exploitation. Cultural narratives and socialization teach people to see certain groups or entities as less valuable or deserving. This conditioning can perpetuate violence, discrimination, and exploitation across generations, reinforcing social hierarchies and power structures.
• When we are faced with morally troubling actions (like committing violence or exploiting others), we may engage in "moral disengagement," a psychological process where we reduce our compassion or justify our actions to avoid “cognitive dissonance” – i.e. the pain of remorse. Dehumanizing others is a key part of this process. By reducing the humanity of the victim, a person can maintain a positive self-image while engaging in behavior that would otherwise conflict with their moral or ethical beliefs. “They can always have more,” said of a grieving Vietnamese mother during the war, for example. [Studies in moral psychology, such as those by Albert Bandura on moral disengagement, show how people use mechanisms like euphemistic labeling, diffusion of responsibility, or victim-blaming to justify harmful actions. Surprise. Such studies seem to confirm the obvious.]
• We are more likely to reduce others to negative stereotypes or dehumanize them when resources (like food, land, or economic opportunities) are perceived as scarce. This mindset makes it easier to rationalize exclusion, competition, or aggression to secure limited resources. This is partly behind the MAGA demonization of immigrants – those “least of our brethren.” It seems undeniable that periods of scarcity (like famines, economic crises, or environmental stress) often coincide with increased xenophobia, intergroup conflict, and violence.
• Humans are hardwired to perceive and respond to threats. When people feel fear or perceive danger, they may become more likely to dehumanize or reduce the perceived source of that threat in order to justify defensive or aggressive actions. Dictators and would-be dictators play on this constantly. I think of the words of Hermann Göring: "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
• The tendency to reduce others for exploitation or violence has been shaped by specific historical and economic systems, such as colonialism and capitalism. These systems often require viewing certain people, places, or animals as resources to be used rather than as beings with intrinsic value. To sustain economic exploitation, colonial and capitalist systems often promote ideologies that diminish the humanity or worth of the exploited—e.g., treating workers as "labor units" or nature as "raw materials."
• Humans have a tendency to create and enforce social hierarchies, often by reducing those at the bottom to less-than-human status to justify their subjugation or exploitation. Hierarchical thinking makes it easier to rationalize inequality and maintain power structures. I don’t think all hierarchy is necessarily unjust or implies contempt for those at the bottom. But “natural hierarchies” have often functioned as ideology.
• The language and symbols we use shape how we perceive and interact with the world. Linguistic reduction (like calling an enemy "monsters" or reducing an ecosystem to "resources") can psychologically distance us from the full complexity of others, making it easier to justify violence or exploitation.

All of these cause us to distort reality and thus our response to reality. 

. . .

 

The tendency to reduce or distort richer realities to simpler or lesser ones is a kind of failure to align one's thoughts and feelings with the actual nature of things, which implies robust realism—such as that of St. Thomas Aquinas.

     St. Thomas Aquinas was a proponent of a form of robust realism grounded in the idea that reality can impress itself on the disciplined intellect (and heart) — "adaequatio intellectus et rei" (the adequation of the intellect to the thing). For Aquinas, truth involves knowing things as they actually are, in their full richness and particularity, as created by God. When we reduce a richer reality to a lesser, distorted one (for example, by dehumanizing others or oversimplifying complex situations), we fail to align our thoughts and perceptions with the true nature of that reality. This failure can be seen as a kind of departure from truth, in Aquinas's sense—a deviation from the actual nature or essence of the beings or things in question.

    Aquinas's metaphysics is deeply rooted in the concept of being (esse) and the idea that every being has an intrinsic nature or essence that reflects the divine order. For Aquinas, every entity—whether a person, an animal, or an aspect of nature—has a unique essence and a degree of participation in existence, which must be recognized and respected. Reductionist thinking ignores or distorts the fullness of being by oversimplifying or misrepresenting the essences of things. For example, reducing a person to a stereotype or an enemy negates their complexity, dignity, and the depth of their being. From a Thomistic perspective, this is not only morally wrong but also metaphysically incorrect because it fails to recognize the true nature of the person as a unique, rational being with inherent worth.

       Moral response (obligation) is rooted in Being. The real is the foundation of the good life, right action, and appropriate emotion. If you want your words, actions, and way of life to aim at what is good, then you must attune your heart and mind to the being of the world and everything in it. You don’t examine your conscience or values in the first place; you don’t look to the principles or ideals you established for yourself. You have to look away from yourself to see what reality is and be guided by that. (Reality in the sense of the essence and telos of any phenomenon as well as its perhaps unfilled potentials.) To be good is to be attuned to Being, to reality.

   Goethe wrote that morality can be reduced to one thing: truth. Truth in the sense of the uncovering or revealing of reality to the intellect and heart (to reason, which includes both). Truth is Being proclaiming itself to us. 

     For Aquinas, recognizing the truth about beings is not just an intellectual but a moral duty. Failure to apprehend and acknowledge the truth about others—seeing them as mere objects for exploitation, for example—is an intellectual and a moral failure. It is a failure to love and respect the inherent dignity that belongs to all beings as creatures of God. Reductionist thinking represents a failure of reason, a failure of knowledge and understanding. It comes from a deficiency in the human capacity to know and to apprehend the fullness of reality. Aquinas would argue that such deficiencies are the result of various human limitations, including sin, ignorance, and bias, which obscure our understanding and prevent us from fully aligning our thoughts with the true nature of things.

     Aquinas’s philosophy incorporates a robust notion of natural law, which is based on the idea that there are objective moral truths grounded in human nature and the nature of the world. Humans are capable of discerning these truths through reason (including the heart). When people reduce others to mere objects or diminish their reality, they act contrary to natural law because they violate the inherent dignity of those others, who are rational beings with their own purposes and ends. From a Thomistic standpoint, the tendency to dehumanize or exploit others is a failure to recognize and act according to the natural law, which demands that we treat others according to their true nature as rational beings. Reductionist behavior represents a distortion of natural law because it fails to recognize the full moral status of others.

  Aquinas holds that human cognition is intentional, meaning it is directed toward the reality of things outside the mind. To know truly is to have one's intellect aligned with the objective reality of things, as they exist independently of our perceptions or desires. When humans reduce complex realities to simpler, distorted versions, they fail in this intentional act of cognition. They no longer see the reality as it is, but as they have distorted it to be. This represents a gap between the mind and the world—a failure of intentionality to reach its proper object. According to Aquinas, this is not just an error but a kind of moral deficiency, as it often involves self-deception or willful ignorance.

     For Aquinas, every created being participates in the divine order of being and has its place and purpose within that order. Proper understanding of reality involves recognizing this participation—acknowledging the inherent goodness and value of all beings as part of God's creation. When humans reduce others to mere objects or instruments for their use, they fail to see and respect the divine order. They deny the intrinsic value and purpose of those beings, seeing them instead only in terms of their utility or threat to themselves. This denial of the participation of others in the divine order is a profound metaphysical and moral error from the Thomistic perspective.

     Aquinas, following Christian theology, holds that human sinfulness distorts our understanding and inclines us to reduce or exploit others. Original sin has affected human reason, will, and emotions, leading us to misperceive reality and act unjustly. The tendency to dehumanize or exploit others can be seen as a manifestation of this fallen state—a failure to recognize the true nature and value of others. Aquinas would argue that this is not merely a cognitive error but a moral failing that stems from a corrupted will and disordered desires, which prevent us from aligning with God's truth.

   From a Thomistic perspective, the human tendency to reduce richer realities to simpler, distorted ones is a profound failure to recognize and align with the truth of things as they are. It represents a gap between the mind and reality—a failure to see and acknowledge the full essence, dignity, and worth of beings as they participate in the divine order. Such reduction is not just an intellectual error but a moral and spiritual failure, reflecting a deeper disharmony between human cognition, moral understanding, and the true nature of reality.

 . . .

Thus, this phenomenon does indeed support a robust realism, like that of Aquinas, where aligning one's mind and will with the reality of things is both a cognitive and moral imperative. The reduction of reality is seen as a failure to know, respect, and love as we ought, given the true nature of beings in the world.

   Everything I have written about “reductionism” here applies even more to philosophies embracing the “social construction of reality” or the “subjective construction of reality” (solipsism).