[lit-ideas] Re: Giving Reasons and Morality
- From: wokshevs@xxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 17:36:48 -0230
I beg the indulgence of those who still await a (probably long over-due) reply
to their posts on threads in which I have been involved as I postpone those
replies yet again in an effort to meet a looming administrative deadline. My
being able to meet that deadline hinges on getting clear on a matter that has
been befuddling me for some time now. I seek input both from the philosophers
as well as from those blessed with common sense. (I grant, of course, the
intersection of those classes.) It has to do with the relationship between
giving reasons and morality. Here are two possible versions of the
relationship.
Version A
Moral principles and norms having to do with equality, autonomy, reciprocity and
universality are general criteria which we apply to different contexts,
actions, policies, etc.. Reason-giving is one particular activity or
language-game. We can do it either in accordance with the above stated moral
norms or we can engage in the activity while violating those same norms. Moral
principles originate within our socialization into a particular culture, set of
traditions, etc.. So we, for example, come to learn to respect the equal
freedom of all persons and then we apply this norm within our particular
activities, one of which is reason-giving. (Or we fail to do so.)
Version B
Moral principles conceptually originate within the activity of giving reasons.
The former necessarily presuppose the latter. Without this practice, we could
not learn, nor would we have, moral concepts such as equality, autonomy, right
and wrong, obligation, etc.. It's not that these moral principles and concepts
are available to us first, learned first within acculturation, and then applied
to various activities and contexts, one of which is reason-giving. Rather,
what it means to respect others as free and equal persons, what it means to
have an obligation, etc., are intelligible to us only because we understand
what it means to give reasons.
That's a quick and rough way of putting it, I realize. But any commentary on
which version is the correct one would be appreciated. I'm assuming they're
mutually exclusive, but perhaps not? I'm not attributing either of these views
to any particular writer as I don't want to get embroiled in textual
hermeneutic matters.
Walter C. Okshevsky
Memorial U
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
