From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jimmy -Jimbo- Wales)
Subject: Re: Grounding morals
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 06:07:40 GMT

>>The notion that an argument is required (desirable, good) to support
>>any particular course of action is grounded in the recognition that
>>humans a beings of a finite consciousness, able to make errors, and
>>not possessed of an automatic code of values.  Simply put, we are
>>human, we must decide what to do.
>
>Well, one interesting question might be this: precisely what role does such
>an argument play? Is the argument a necessary _justification_ for moral
>conduct? Or does it in some way _define_ what moral conduct is? Does it
>perhaps _explain_ morality? Is it the case that if we have no such
>argument, then there is no reason to be moral? Or does having the argument
>(or the philosophical) explication somehow make it easier to be good?

These are interesting questions.  I could give you my answers
(part of which would include arguments that at least some of
these questions are ill-formed), but I would rather hear yours!

>Remember, I was addressing the suggestion--made by someone else, who is by
>now quite cross with me--that we should give arguments that support
>statements like, "murder is wrong". I didn't say that you cannot--or ought
>not--give _reasons_ for why one action is good or another bad; I didn't say
>that you can't argue about whether a certain deed is good or bad. 

Well, what's the difference?  Isn't giving an argument that
supports a statement of that sort precisely the same activity
as giving reasons for the goodness or badness of that activity?
But perhaps I misread you.

>>It is of course true that we could choose to pursue any old random
>>course of action, some course of action for which we can give no 
>>reasons.  But the nature of huamn life (conditional, often precarious)
>>on this planet (a nice place, but not a Garden of Eden where survival
>>is guaranteed) is such that random courses of action will not
>>likely be productive of anything other than pain, suffering, and
>>(ultimately) death.
>
>Sounds unpleasant, all right. I'm not sure why not having an argument that
>murder is bad leaves one in such a miserable state, though.

Not directly, not immediately, not individually, of course.  But
intellectual arguments play a strong role in shaping culture, law,
etc.   If there is a failure among intellectuals (philosophers) in
defending (for example) the fundamental value of life, then a direct
result may be: Nazi gas chambers.  We've seen it happen.

So no, you don't have to know arguments, my grocer doesn't need to
know arguments, but - by golly- someone had better, or we may all
be in deep trouble.

>Gosh. I don't think I ever said anything that would contradict this. Why
>would I want to reject philosophy? I'd as soon reject my liver. I did try
>to make a teensy suggestion about the proper _role_ of philosophy--a
>suggestion that I hoped someone might take up and help me think about. But
>I guess this is the kind of suggestion that gets you served hemlock tea.

Perhaps such a suggestion might get you served hemlock tea -- but
not by me... instead by those who would argue that there is no need
for (or value in) philosophical defenses of the virtues of reason,
objectivity, tolerance, etc.

--Jimbo