♦ ficino ♦ Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Here's a review of what sounds like an interesting book on morality: How Should We Live? A Practical Approach to Everyday Morality. http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/56252-how-should-we-live-a-practical-approach-to-everyday-morality/ The author of the book, John Kekes, is a philosopher. He argues that human life is so variegated, circumstances so complicated, and loyalties so often at variance with each other, that absolutist systems of morality break down. Life is always more complicated than theories about life. Kekes says there is no compelling reason to think that ordinary decent human agency must be ethically or eudaimonically (i.e. having to do with theories of happiness) improved upon by a dose of second-order evaluation. it's wholesome just to get on with one's duties with integrity. Kekes doesn't deny that there are objective principles. He roots them in basic human needs. He does argue that none of them overrides the others. In a situation, you have to balance as well as you can. When I was a high school principal I sometimes used to wonder what Socrates would do in a situation. Somehow, Plato's portrayals of Socrates trying to define some ethical notion never get down to what one actually needs to do when there are conflicting claims and interests. I also used to think back to my Catholic days and how old-style Catholic moralists used to say that even youths can act rightly if they follow the Church's teachings, while sophisticated intellectuals wallow in confusion. In practice, I think that old-style approach fails when it's just trying to apply rules. For example, even youths recognize that it's wrong when one of their teachers, who just married a same-sex spouse, is then fired by the diocese. It's basic human decency, not rules, that promote these kids to picket their own bishops. Toward the end of the review, the reviewer writes that Kekes provides "schematic 'real life' examples (the School Teacher, the Father, the Nurse, the Civil Servant, the Betrayed Woman) in an attempt to make his arguments more vivid. The book's overall message is a kind of hymn to ground floor, practical reason, which allows us to 'live reasonably in the context of civilized societies in a plurality of ways' (225), but without any overarching philosophical theory to guide us. The sober message is well articulated, but I suspect it will do little to dispel the perennial allure of theory." I don't know whether Kekes would win a debate against William Lane Craig on the claims of objective morality. Some of you guys may enjoy reading the review of Kekes' book, anyway. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llwellyn Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 On the whole, I agree with the sentiment that ethical theory is mostly null given the variegated exigencies of life. Certainly there is no ethical theory that can be assumed to be the "last word" and equally relevant year by year. But I would say that "Ordinary decent human agency" is itself a theory. If we are going to retrograde from some ethical system (e.g. Aristotelian Ethics, Utilitarianism, Biblical Morality), then this will be an application of intelligence. When Kekes talks about a collection of "basic human needs" this is similar to Arnhart's description of "Twenty Natural Desires" in his book "Darwinian Natural Right." "Balancing as well as you can" is what Arnhart describes as application of "prudential reason." I like what John Dewey says when he refuses to identify what those "basic human needs" are and says that Habit and Culture are more important than instinct and biology in defining the human needs that must be met by applied intelligence in the area of ethics. There are no foundations in ethics, but we can apply our most considered reason to ethical questions. Don't know what else we might care to do. I believer that small children may need some "rules of thumb" in decision-making that ignores the "truth of relativism" for purposes of guided action and confidence. To that end, the Catholic Catechism may meet a need of small children of the young and the old variety. It seems like this book does not move the ball much further than Dewey's "Human Nature and Conduct." Neither book as done much to "dispel the perennial allure of theory." Humans do not want to let go of their conceptual schemes. Ethical "systems" are useful repositories of hard-won wisdom; I'm not sure that we would be richer for having unhitched ourselve from them. That probably applies to Christianity as a vehicle to transmit lessons from yesterday to today. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penguin Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Y'all are speaking in terms for which I was not burdened with an overabundance of schooling, but in as far as I understand, I would agree that certain ethical systems break down. Like wood, a very firm, unyielding piece will likely break off in a storm. A softer, more malleable wood will bend, but it is less likely to break. Of course, we could take that to the extreme, chuck morality, and go on a crime spree, but those of us in our right minds will recognize that as a foolish thing to do. Many situations in life are not black and white, but some very much are. Every human being seems to appreciate three things: life, liberty, and happiness. Everyone in their right mind wants to live. Having been "on the ledge" of suicide, I didn't really want to die, however committed I was to the act. I just wanted to stop hurting. Our natural instinct is for self-preservation. For this reason, the majority of people think of self-sacrifice for the protection of another to be a noble act. Secondly, liberty. We all value our freedom to say and do as we please. Even seemingly restrictive systems like Communism include--at least on paper--the liberty of one group or another. Prisoners escape because they want liberty. Soldiers go AWOL. Employees call in sick to take the day off. Students skip school. We like to do what we like to do, when we like to do it. This juxtaposes with the third point: happiness. We don't want to feel sad, angry, oppressed, or other negative emotions. Every human in their right mind wants to be happy, at least a majority of the time. From these three things, I shape my own ethics. The particulars are, however, fluid. What is unethical in one situation is acceptable in another. If I say "lying is always wrong," then I lose respect for my life, liberty, and/or happiness in situations where it is preferable for me to lie to preserve those three facets of my existence. Furthermore, not lying may be an infringement upon the rights of another for their life, liberty, and/or happiness. That is not to say there is not a time for offense, for the omission of liberty, or--sadly--for the taking of a life, but we should seek to maintain what is right, not what is black and white. That's my $0.02. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llwellyn Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 What kind of bugs me about Kekes, and Arnhart and others is that they wish to foreswear relativism. One minute they say that there are no foundations in ethics apart from human need, but then they want to define human need rather than let humans define their own needs. They are phobic of the word "relativism" as well as "anti-foundationalism" and "anti-essentialism." The minute they tear down some reference point for ethics, they erect another one in terms of so-called "universal human needs." I get that humans have needs for food, family, self-expression. You could add "life, liberty and happiness." You could start describing a lot of different human needs. But these all underdetermine ethical choices. "There are an indefinite number of original or instinctive activities, which are organized into the interests and dispositions according to which they respond." Dewey. A lot of people are afraid of a world without foundations. Or, they want something to worship, and if they can't worship God, they must bow their knees to foundations. Or, they want to posit foundations in order to manipulate the world with a kind of out-sized influence relative to their peers. Archimedes: "Give me a fulcrum, and I shall move the world." They pretend to want to jettison supra-historical assurances, (except the one that they erect in its place). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disillusioned Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 A lot of people are afraid of a world without foundations. Or, they want something to worship, and if they can't worship God, they must bow their knees to foundations. Or, they want to posit foundations in order to manipulate the world with a kind of out-sized influence relative to their peers. Archimedes: "Give me a fulcrum, and I shall move the world." They pretend to want to jettison supra-historical assurances, (except the one that they erect in its place). I think this is a very interesting perspective. I agree that many people are afraid of a world without foundations, but I'm not sure that all or even most of those who attempt to establish foundations do so out of fear. It seems to me to be fundamental to the nature of reason that we have to start somewhere. We need some basic assumptions. Obviously some people take this notion further than others, but I think that this can lead some people to reject extreme forms of relativism out of an honest attempt to make sense. The thing is, I don't think that relativism has to be without foundations. The foundations of relativism just aren't carved in stone. To embrace a world without moral absolutes does not mean that we are left with total moral anarchy. Rather, what we can have is a sort of pseudo-democratic approach to establishing general moral principles (based, for example, on human need--which need not be absolutely defined), coupled with room for individual decisions. As is pointed out in the OP, real life is invariably more complex than our theories about life. But, again, comparisons can be made to our systems of government. Democracy is not a perfect system, but it's the best we have. There are many times when it isn't precisely clear who has acted in accordance with the law and who has broken it. The law is constantly being evaluated, rewritten, and changed. But it really does exist. So just as democracy does not mean that we don't have law, I don't see that relativism needs to mean that we don't have foundations for our morality; it just means that those foundations can shift. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts