From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Subject: Re: Grounding morals
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 03:20:35 GMT
Organization: The Instrumentality
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <C1F6p9.AE7@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jimmy -Jimbo- Wales) writes:

[ I, PC, wrote ]
>>>Why should we think that an argument is _required_ to prohibit murder,
>>>or that a criterion must be found that confers a right to live?  Where
>>>did we get the idea that philosophy ought to give us _reasons_ for the
>>>simplest things?

>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?

Without some clear idea of the function of this argument--and without a
clear idea of what such an argument is _like_, I'm afraid that I remain at
sea about why we need such arguments, or what kind of arguments we need.

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. 

>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.

>There is a sense in which philosophy can not be escaped.  

Ah haaaaaa! Watch me:

 philosophy 

Sorry, I couldn't resist. The devil made me do it.

"There is
>no escape from philosophy.  The question is only whether a philosophy
>is conscious or not, whether it is good or bad, muddled or clear.  
>Anyone who rejects philosophy is himself unconsciously practicing
>a philosophy." (Karl Jaspers, Way to Wisdom)

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.

>Even your rejection of the notion that philosophical argument can
>give us a guide to action is an (implicit) philosophical argument
>giving you a guide to action.

Wow. You mean I was doing philosophy without even knowing it? Like a real
philosopher? No, you do me too much credit. 

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~