As always, if I take the time to write the damn thing, I like to make sure it appears SOMEWHERE.
I wrote a piece on Goodness dealing with this rough topic, which I
will link at the end of this post. In my view, the academic search for
singular best answers in the moral realm is futile, just as it is futile
to search for final qualitative gestalts in any realm of human
endeavor. We live in a universe without a top or bottom, in which up is
defined solely by the presence of gravity. We must reason, then, as
bubbles in an endless ocean. Our advantages are that we are self aware
bubbles, and we are aware of one another.
Logically, in any
purposive activity, one must define one’s goal. The simplest and most
obvious goal in human life is happiness. The next question is: are
there grades and types of happiness? My answer is that, yes, there
are. The happiness of a parent seeing a child succeed is in my view
qualitatively higher than spending time with a prostitute. The pride of
success in a long, hard fought battle is better than intoxication.
Logically,
since I cannot inhabit other people’s minds, all such reason must
proceed from my own experience. If my experiences are shared, then I
will generate recognition in others. I am not stipulating general
rules; I am, rather, saying “this is true for ME, and I believe that you
will find it true for YOU also.” Such a thing may be an approximate
general rule, with exceptions.
In my view, there is no room for
ontology, per se, but rather for tendencies and directions and
approximations. I call a moral order a Telearchy: it is an order–a
complex order, a formally “chaotic” order–based upon chosen aims and
principles.
Within my own moral ecology all moral decisions are
local, imperfect, and necessary. It will not be necessary for me to
render a decision on whether or not to eat my cat until the cat dies.
And if I simply choose not to eat my cat because I don’t want to, that
is fine. Nothing further need be said, as this is not even an important
decision.
Your capacity to pursue your own rational self
interest–a combination of temporal simple pleasures and higher grade,
more difficult “flow” sorts of experiences–is dictated by your
character. In many cases, it is easier to make a decision which does
not best support your own long term best interests. This means that a
properly moral disposition will have the capacity to reject self pity,
and the capacity to persevere in the face of difficulty. I therefore
make these two habits immutable principles within my own creed.
My
third core principle is what I call Perceptual Breathing, which is the
constant habit of reconciling abstractions with concrete realities, and
more generally constantly pursuing UNDERSTANDING on all the levels on
which it operates: kinesthetic, emotional, cognitive (both in terms of
patterns of thinking and actual knowledge) and in my view spiritual.
Thus,
in answer to your question as to whether or not moral reasoning can be
improved, I would say both no and yes. No, because I don’t think you
can “do” morality in the abstract. I do not think it is a useful
activity. Yes, because characters can be improved, judgement improved,
knowledge gained. But what is being improved is a complex moral gestalt
that is unstable, but oriented through movement in a chosen direction.
Few
thoughts. My piece (I hesitate to call it an essay) is here:
http://www.goodnessmovement.com/files/Download/dean%20rosengarten%20reply–modified.pdf
You
may find the rest of the website of some interest as well. Morality is
the rough subtext of everything on there. Even when I deal with
economics, I am trying to develop a better understanding of the effects
of specific types of policies on generalized human well being. That
website is http://www.goodnessmovement.com
2 replies on “Goodness”
Well, it made it out of the filter. I doubt anyone will engage it substantively, though. My handle is Mountain Goat, and I like butting heads. I don't lose often, but either way, I always learn.
What is likely off-putting, here, is that I genuinely don't give a shit what other philosophers have had to say. What academics do is compare the ideas of Person One, declared Exalted, and Person Two. This is stupid. When it comes to philosophy, you are always able to start with Square one, and reinvent everything. If you look at the history of philosophy, its current state, and its general USELESSNESS–irrelevance to the lives of everyone outside perhaps a few thousand who live inside its walls–this surely seems like the most potentially profitable approach.
The problem, of course, is that for many thinking is a form of aesthetic pursuit. The iconic and emotional value of ideas can easily in such a world be divorced from their actual utility, however utility may be defined.
The author actually made a good point: simply because most academic philosophers are stupid does not mean they ALL are, and if the people who work in good faith abandon the universities, all that will happen is that that front will have been surrendered.
I was feeling cranky when I posted that. I feel less cranky now. Occasionally I see a ray of sunshine, and cause for hope. I have always been skeptical of hope, but one can't deny its appeal.