While many philosophers have attacked the idea of an ethical theory, they are often asked what they do think about ethics if they don't hold to some particular moral theory.
Anti-theoreticians like Elizabeth Anscombe, Bernard Williams and Tim Chappell appear to philosophize in very different ways, but I would suggest that what unites them in ethics is a foundational aversion to ethical ideology. Speaking out against Kantianism, consequentialism and Aristoteleanism, these thinkers are sometimes accused of having a nihilistic streak. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Ethical nihilism asserts that there are no ethical considerations. In other words, nothing "matters". If I kick a rock down the street, it may end up bouncing on to the road or on to the grass. It also may end up striking a person in the back of the head, or it may not. Most of us believe that these two classes of considerations are different, because the difference between the first considerations (grass/road) is not particularly important, while the difference between the second class of considerations (striking/missing a person) is important. Nihilism denies that there is any distinction, here: the stone may strike a blade of grass, it may roll into the road, or it may knock someone unconscious. For the ethical nihilist, each of these considerations is equally important, for none of them is important at all.
We should be able to see, rather easily, that to reject ethical theory is not to embrace ethical nihilism. For just as the ethical nihilist denies that any consideration is important, the ethical theorist asserts that all ethical considerations are ultimately of the same type. Just as the political ideologist (Marxist, neo-liberal, feminist) analyzes all political issues in terms of one kind of consideration (economic class, individual liberty, gender), the ethical theorist thinks that anything that is ethically important acquires its importance from the same basic source. The theorist is, plainly speaking, an ideologue.
The less popular middle position here asserts that some classes of considerations are important in the ethical sense. It matters that a rock may strike another person, whereas it generally does not matter if my rock ends up on the grass or the road. Yet, such a thinker simply opposes the theorist's reductionism about ethical considerations: there is no single measure of ethical importance. Given the vast contingencies of human development, human society and individual psychology, there is no reason to believe that such a measure can be discovered.
None of this implies that there is nothing we can say about ethics, morality or the good life. We can say quite a lot. The anti-theoretician simply asks that we drop the idea of a reductionist ideology and get on with it.
Ethical nihilism asserts that there are no ethical considerations. In other words, nothing "matters". If I kick a rock down the street, it may end up bouncing on to the road or on to the grass. It also may end up striking a person in the back of the head, or it may not. Most of us believe that these two classes of considerations are different, because the difference between the first considerations (grass/road) is not particularly important, while the difference between the second class of considerations (striking/missing a person) is important. Nihilism denies that there is any distinction, here: the stone may strike a blade of grass, it may roll into the road, or it may knock someone unconscious. For the ethical nihilist, each of these considerations is equally important, for none of them is important at all.
We should be able to see, rather easily, that to reject ethical theory is not to embrace ethical nihilism. For just as the ethical nihilist denies that any consideration is important, the ethical theorist asserts that all ethical considerations are ultimately of the same type. Just as the political ideologist (Marxist, neo-liberal, feminist) analyzes all political issues in terms of one kind of consideration (economic class, individual liberty, gender), the ethical theorist thinks that anything that is ethically important acquires its importance from the same basic source. The theorist is, plainly speaking, an ideologue.
The less popular middle position here asserts that some classes of considerations are important in the ethical sense. It matters that a rock may strike another person, whereas it generally does not matter if my rock ends up on the grass or the road. Yet, such a thinker simply opposes the theorist's reductionism about ethical considerations: there is no single measure of ethical importance. Given the vast contingencies of human development, human society and individual psychology, there is no reason to believe that such a measure can be discovered.
None of this implies that there is nothing we can say about ethics, morality or the good life. We can say quite a lot. The anti-theoretician simply asks that we drop the idea of a reductionist ideology and get on with it.
0 comments:
Post a Comment