Meaningful Questions
We invest great effort in trying to answer moral questions. But the wrong kind of questons can result in wasted effort and mental dead ends. They can also have deadening moral consequences as well.
So what are the right kind of questions?
I would suggest the following rules. These rules will lead inevitably to a resolution or to Ludwig Witttgenstein's "silence". ("Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.")
1. A intelligible question can only be formulated in which both subject and predicate are present in the natural world. Thus, the sentence "does my cat exist?" is unintelligible as the subject cat is part of the natural world while the predicate exist is not. To make this clear, consider the question "Does my cat exist in the universe?" Until you can define "the universe", that question is logically meaningless. However, "does my cat exist in my house?" is intelligible and thus resolvable as both "cat" and "house" either are in the natural world. "Does my cat have a soul?" or "Do souls exist?" are both meaningless truth statements as "soul" is not part of the natural world. This is not to say that questions outside of the natural world, in which subject/predicate don't correlate within anything that we can see, feel, or touch are not worthy of contemplation or debate. Of coure they are, and they will ever be. It means only that we must accept that such questions are unresolvable.
2. The next test is: Does the question concern the human world? This is not to say that animals and automata are not subject to acts of morality or immorality. I merely posit that humans are the only actors to which we can fairly evaluate.
3. The corrollary to proposition two is: How do those human actions manifest itself? Thus, our investigaton must strictly be on consequences of actions, not or any presumed interior state such as faith, hope, or love. A person's interior states are by definition subjective. Further, two people with the same interior state such as good will can result in diametrically different behaviors. By focusing on actions and consequences rather than cognition and conscience, we have a natural-world baseline to evaluate whether that behavior resolves itself into either true or false or good or bad.
4. By focusing on actions, we may state as a rule that actions that conform to custom are ceteris paribus to the good. We define good strictly in terms of collective utility: does it pay or does it not pay. Pragmatic behavior is moral behavior. We do well by doing good.
5. Ethical choices is a result of both a act of partciularizing and universalizing. Thus, "humanity" does not exist. Only people-- Tom, Mary, Mohammed, etc.-- exist. Our capacity to abstract indivudals into tribes (communists, atheists, republicans etc.) is a capacity lacking in all lower animals and accounts for our violence against our own species. By particularizing, we allow for nuances and exceptions to guiding principles, and it is this leap of empathy that allows us to make morally correct applications and adjudications. However, by attempting to universalize, we put our mind outside of ourself by considering how our actions would be regarded in the context of all humanity. Kant's categorical imperative to be the benchmark:
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law".
"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end.
"Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends." [
6. The premise behind this schema for asking meaningful questions is that first we can ask such questions. That is to say, we have cognition, and we have the freedom to choose and the freedom to act. This does not presuppose that all people are rational and freedom-seeking. To the contrary, a rational view of man must presuppose that many people are not rational and all people are never always rational. However, we have a duty to ourselves, consistent with the categorical imperative, to harmonize our own ethical behavior with the world as it is. And, by so doing, we can indeed ask and answer moral questions.
So what are the right kind of questions?
I would suggest the following rules. These rules will lead inevitably to a resolution or to Ludwig Witttgenstein's "silence". ("Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.")
1. A intelligible question can only be formulated in which both subject and predicate are present in the natural world. Thus, the sentence "does my cat exist?" is unintelligible as the subject cat is part of the natural world while the predicate exist is not. To make this clear, consider the question "Does my cat exist in the universe?" Until you can define "the universe", that question is logically meaningless. However, "does my cat exist in my house?" is intelligible and thus resolvable as both "cat" and "house" either are in the natural world. "Does my cat have a soul?" or "Do souls exist?" are both meaningless truth statements as "soul" is not part of the natural world. This is not to say that questions outside of the natural world, in which subject/predicate don't correlate within anything that we can see, feel, or touch are not worthy of contemplation or debate. Of coure they are, and they will ever be. It means only that we must accept that such questions are unresolvable.
2. The next test is: Does the question concern the human world? This is not to say that animals and automata are not subject to acts of morality or immorality. I merely posit that humans are the only actors to which we can fairly evaluate.
3. The corrollary to proposition two is: How do those human actions manifest itself? Thus, our investigaton must strictly be on consequences of actions, not or any presumed interior state such as faith, hope, or love. A person's interior states are by definition subjective. Further, two people with the same interior state such as good will can result in diametrically different behaviors. By focusing on actions and consequences rather than cognition and conscience, we have a natural-world baseline to evaluate whether that behavior resolves itself into either true or false or good or bad.
4. By focusing on actions, we may state as a rule that actions that conform to custom are ceteris paribus to the good. We define good strictly in terms of collective utility: does it pay or does it not pay. Pragmatic behavior is moral behavior. We do well by doing good.
5. Ethical choices is a result of both a act of partciularizing and universalizing. Thus, "humanity" does not exist. Only people-- Tom, Mary, Mohammed, etc.-- exist. Our capacity to abstract indivudals into tribes (communists, atheists, republicans etc.) is a capacity lacking in all lower animals and accounts for our violence against our own species. By particularizing, we allow for nuances and exceptions to guiding principles, and it is this leap of empathy that allows us to make morally correct applications and adjudications. However, by attempting to universalize, we put our mind outside of ourself by considering how our actions would be regarded in the context of all humanity. Kant's categorical imperative to be the benchmark:
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law".
"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end.
"Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends." [
6. The premise behind this schema for asking meaningful questions is that first we can ask such questions. That is to say, we have cognition, and we have the freedom to choose and the freedom to act. This does not presuppose that all people are rational and freedom-seeking. To the contrary, a rational view of man must presuppose that many people are not rational and all people are never always rational. However, we have a duty to ourselves, consistent with the categorical imperative, to harmonize our own ethical behavior with the world as it is. And, by so doing, we can indeed ask and answer moral questions.
Labels: epistemology
posted by My Mall and News at
9:45 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home