[lit-ideas] Re: Univocal philosophy as the value of transcendental claims?
- From: "John McCreery" <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 04:39:01 +0900
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 2:54 AM, Eric Dean <ecdean99@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I think that debates about this topic tend to get polarized in a way that's
> analogous to what happens in debates about the nature of truth -- either
> there's absolute truth or every asserted truth is just a power play by
> someone. I think that is a false dichotomy and similarly I think the notion
> that morality is either transcendental or culturally-bound is a false
> dichotomy.
>
Here again, Eric and I agree.
By chance my browsing today leads me to
http://www.wfs.org/Jan-Feb%2009/MoralBrain1.htm
Here, buried on the second page, I find the followins,
A great example of moral-writing software is culture. Cultural influences on
> moral decision making can include everything from the laws that govern a
> particular society to the ideas about pride, honor, and justice that play
> out in a city neighborhood to the power dynamics of a given household....
>
> But what if there are limitations to the spectrum of variation? What if,
> beneath the trappings of culture and upbringing, there really is such a
> thing as universal morality? If such a thing existed, how would you go about
> proving it? Enter Marc Hauser, whose research is adding credence to the
> notion of a universal goodness impulse.
>
I note the framing of the two questions, "what if there are limitations to
the spectrum of variation?" and "what if... there really is such a thing as
universal morality?" I observe that joining these two questions in this
particular way suggests that "limitations..." implies "universal...," which
is plainly a non sequitor.
Numerous systems exist in which permutations and combinations of a finite
number of elements produce an infinity (or at least very large number) of
particular outcomes: the periodic table of the elements, the genetic code,
number theory, and Chomskian grammar, for example. In the case of moral
judgment, the fact that human beings are biologically predisposed to
bifurcate behavior into categories conventionally glossed as "right" and
"wrong," tells us nothing about where the line is drawn in any particular
case.
The research described in this article suggests that there may be a moral
equivalent to Chomsky's deep structure of language. I note, however, that
Chomsky's ideas, which I once embraced when it came to Language have not
stood up very well in the face of particular languages. As an historical
linguist I once heard speak at Berkeley remarked, Chomsky envisions Language
as a shiny new erector set from which all sorts of things can be made. The
languages historical linguists study are like old erector sets found hidden
away in dusty attic corners. Original pieces are missing and the box now
contains all sorts of things, bits of wood, rubber bands, or fossilized
bits of well-chewed bubble gum, as well as the other pieces of the original
set.
Serendipitously, I have also been reading John McPhee's Rising from the
Plain, in which McPhee combines the history of the ideas geologists use to
try to account for places like Yellowstone Park, where I just spent my
Christmas vacation, with the biography of legendary field geologist David
Love ( see http://www.geotimes.org/aug02/MarchFeature_DLove.html). In it,
Love comments on the difference between what he calls "black box geologists"
who make up what they hope are universal models based on limited data sets
and field geologists like himself, who find it more productive to examine in
detail how particular pieces of the earth have arrived at their current
shapes.
I am reminded, too, of the hoary joke about a physicist, a chemist and an
economist stranded on a desert highland with nothing to eat but a can of
beans. The chemist calculates how big a fire will be necessary to heat the
can to the point at which it explodes. The physicist calculates how big a
mat will be necessary to catch the beans as they fly out of the exploding
can. The economist says, "Assume a can opener."
Oh, well....
John
--
John McCreery
The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN
Tel. +81-45-314-9324
jlm@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.wordworks.jp/
Other related posts:
