[lit-ideas] Re: Grice and Foot on the foundations of morality
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 10:34:17 EDT
Yes. We should re-read that obituary and double check if the view reported
is Foot's. Some obituarists take too much liberty.
I agree with R. Paul:
"The 'naturalistic fallacy,' is that of identifying 'good' with some
'natural property,' e.g. in 'x is good,' 'good' could be replaced by 'its
atoms
are loosely bound,' or in 'A is good,' 'good' could be replaced by 'is
Chinese.' (These are not Moore's examples.)"
Exactly.
----- One may check from Foot's actual wordings. Her book was called
"Natural goodness", so she did play with the word 'natural' -- and the word
'goodness'. Must say I like her example,
"This tree has some EVIL roots".
(adapted).
-------
While McEvoy focuses on the 'ought', I think it is best to see Foot as a
'teleologist', rather than a 'deontologist'. Either you take a modal verb
(ought to, must, should) as the starting point of moralising, or the
good/bad/evil spectrum. Hence Grice's "Kantotle" -- have your cake and eat it.
If Foot tried to oppose Hare's views, she sort of lost the battle,
historically. EVERYBODY was doing Hare in the Oxford of the 1950s. His
"Language
of Morals" was the THING to do. Even Grice has to acknowledge the 'neustic'
versus 'phrastic' distinction in ALL his books -- without mentioning Hare
explicitly! Foot belonged to the Sommerville, and her tutorials were a
different thing. Hare was White's professor of Moral Philosophy, instead. It
will take time for a teleological account of ethics to be influential in
Oxford. I enjoyed her words to the immigration officer on her arrival to the
United States. "And where do YOU live?". "England, of course", as her answer.
She had to be saved by a friend, who came to her rescue: "she is the
granddaughter of President Cleveland, you know".
----- She visited UC/Berkeley, so she may have chit-chatted with Grice
then.
We hope a literary executor will provide a collection of her writings, and
that a more or less detailed checklist of her brilliant writings is now
made more accessible.
----- the point about 'nature' -- in 'naturalistic' fallacy, or 'natural
goodness', is one worth considering. Grice would say that RATIONALITY
operates on 'pre-rational' (natural) tendencies, so I'm never sure to what
extent
Grice counts as a "Naturalist". I think he does. He does list "Naturalism"
as a 'bete noire' on his way to the City of Eternal Truth, but that's
rhetoric. There's a lot of a naturalist trend in Grice's writings.
Perhaps the easiest way for me to understand Foot's views would be via an
examination of her underlying philosophy of language -- but she belonged to
this generation where they thought they could discuss 'ethics' without
troubling with 'meta-ethics' much.
Mary Warnock was her friend, too -- another genia. It is amazing how
intramurally Oxford provided such a VARIETY of ethical and meta-ethical views,
where it was only Communism in Russia. Is that fair?
Now, back to Paul's excellent commentary on McEvoy:
"The 'naturalistic fallacy,' is that of
identifying 'good' with some 'natural property,' e.g. in 'x is good,'
'good' could be replaced by 'its atoms are loosely bound,' or in 'A is
good,' 'good' could be replaced by 'is Chinese.' (These are not Moore's
examples.)"
It may do to apply, for entertainment, this analysis to the example by Foot
as per the obituary. The contrasting pair -- which she does not see as TOO
contrasting:
---- The tree has GOOD roots.
---- A GOOD person performs GOOD deeds.
And so on -- and then meditate on Grice's, Moore's and Foot's use of
'natural'. Or not!
Cheers,
Speranza
----- Bordighera, etc.
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
