Moral constructivism versus Tolkien and Arvo Pärt

 A person guided by moral constructivism, doesn't look for for a moral code in nature or in heaven or in books like the Bible or in any other book. 

Moral guidelines is being based by subjective judgments and beliefs. 

Though a moral constructivist  can claim that he is right, his or hers moral is not arbitrary, even though his ethical system is invented by humans. 

As David Hume argued, we have no objective guidelines to distinguish right from wrong.

We are, according to Hume more guided by passion than by reason, even in out moral decisions. And passion and desires are grounded in our genes and our upbringing. 

Moral exists only insofar as we make it so. Its like art and the rules in football. And we all know that players often will have warnings or try too act as they are wounded - though most often they respect the rules even if they are man made. (but what happen if there were no penalties?)

So will not this lead to anarchy and crime: "I feel that I have the right to take that mans life as he has offended me."

Well, we have laws also in ordinary life, it is a crime to kill someone (at least in most countries).

But we see also empathy in many people. 

I guess we not only driven by pleasure and passion, many of us want to make the world a better place - we care.

Though many of us have not the ability to care for people far in the future, or feel for the livestock or for people in far away countries. 

 If you don't have that ability your moral judgments will be very narrow. 

Or lets say your are the one who strictly follows laws, but fly a lot and drives a car and eat meat everyday. You are the mainstream guy who doesn't reflect so deeply about your behavior. But you are probably pleased with your life. Maybe you even religious and try to follow the ten commandments. 

If you are moral constructivist you are free to have a personal kind of moral (though you should obey the laws if they are reasonable). But of course no one can build a way to live competently by yourself. You will be inspired by your upbringing, other people, by books and of course will your genes give you a direction.  

But you are free to change your view and perhaps make it better and wider. 

Utilitarianism and deontology can of course be seen as constructions too - but for them believing in them  will be more than just constructions. For example Kant, who was an deontologist believed that morals was was objective and out there somewhere - as his categorical  imperative. 

But I guess moral constructivism is a modern view for a secular age (for example talibans wont like it)

The philosopher Weber wrote that the modern era had disenchanted the world. Science has ruled the world since the beginning of the 20-century. 

Tolkien who wrote "The Lord of the Rings" was a catholic and can be seen as someone who wanted to re-enchant the world. Is not the ents a symbol for the revenge of nature.  

But even rational Wittgenstein wrote in his "Tractcus": The things we cannot speak about exist.  It shows itself. That is the mystics. 

It seems that Wittgenstein means that ethics and maybe even God may exist, but  we cannot say anything meaningful about it. 

One who tries to say something about secular ethics and therefore puts his construction on paper is Sean Carroll, theoretical physicist on The California Institute of Technology. In the end of his book "The Big Picture" he makes Ten Considerations; 

1. Life is not forever; this is our only performance here, so make the best of it.

2. Desires is built into our lives; They shape us and make us care for ourselves and others.

3. What matter is what matter to people.

4.We can always do better; Even in ethical matters. 

5. It pays to listen; to ancient masters and to our fellow beings. Consciousness opens up for Empathy and maybe for love.

6. There is no natural way to be; We are a part of nature, but nature cannot guide us in ethics.

7. It take all kinds; As life has no meaning or purpose, we have to create it. And as people are different, there will be different meaning around.

8. The Universe is in our hands; We can think and imagine new things, that makes us different from other species. We can transform the Earth and on day maybe spread life to the rest of the galaxy. the choices are in our hands.

9. We can do better than happiness; In the end of your  life its not about if you have had a happy life, its what story you have to tell about your life.

10. Reality guides us; When a belief makes us happy, it may be an illusion, so be aware.(must of us think we are better than the average. 

That was a just small summary of Carroll's ten considerations.

Carroll supports moral constructivism and Poetic Naturalism -There is just one world, the natural world, but it can be explained "poetically"- in many ways. 

Maybe Carroll is influenced by quantum physics, where uncertainty is included. Anyway, he often speaks about quantum physics  is a supporter of the "many-worlds interpretation" (probably as it is, for him, the most natural solution to the enigma.). But Carroll may, in another perspective, re-enchant, the world (worlds) in that way. For me that interpretation is science going to far.


 Like for Wittgenstein, I think there is no difference between ethics and aesthetics. 

Therefore I end with this ; 





 


but tehn came modern time and the disenchantment..


disenchantment  reenchantment weber


se svd 31/8 ang tolkien ocg enterna tkien katolik

konsten  kan beskria något

tokken åerförtollar

häxprocesser 

upplsningen 

moral

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Cora Diamond on eating animals - with the help of Wittgenstein´s ideas

Image
Cora Diamond is a new name for me, even if she has worked as a professor in Philosophy in the states for a long time and is still  teaching at the university of Virginia, even she is over 80 years old. She has written a lot about Wittgenstein and that has helped her to express her view of the topic. Although she, like Wittgenstein,  has lived in a hut in Norway - and actually brought Tractatus with hes - she seems to be different and for sure more glad than W. Anyways, its W: s writings that interests her and especially his critics of metaphysics and ethics in philosophy. As it is said in Tractacus  : " Whereof one  cannot speak , thereof one must be silent." And of ethics philosophy should not speak - why? Is it like in Buddhism - its better to sit in silence and let know yourself, than to speculate about what will happen when we die? But for sure there ethical guidelines in Buddhism,  but the behaviors is often named skilful, not good (or bad). Another
Read more

I think, therefore I am NOT

Image
So Descartes was wrong. He said that he could doubt everything about himself except that he was thinking. That proved that he existed. The word "I" is the central point here. What does it mean? Perhaps we are sure that we know the answer. Is it the thoughts? In that case - where are you when you aren't thinking? Is it your job, your title? In that case - what happens if you loose your job or change job? Is it your house, your nation? Under my course to be a mindfulness instructor, the teacher, Ola Schenström, made us ask to each other; "Who are you?" After each answer the question was repeated by the questioner.We soon discovered that there were no end to the answers - or maybe an adequate end could be; "I don't know."Or maybe; "It seems I have no essence." Other thinkers have come to the same conclusions; Buddha, Sartre and more recently Damasio and Parfit. Sartre, for instance, has said that we are the sum of our actions. We ha
Read more

Wittgenstein and Buddha -buddies?

Image
Ludwig Wittgenstein, the famous philosopher, reflected in the posthumously published  book "Philosophical Investigations" about the picture above; Is it a hare or duck?  He meant that we make, or must make, a statement what it is. And I suppose he meant that we often or always has to interpret the world around us. But two different interpretations can both be right! Language and thoughts controls what we see.....   You can compare with the picture of a glass. Half empty or half empty?  Who decides? Yes, it's you... And whatever you say is right.  But you can be aware of what you think. That can say more of yourself than of the glass....  You can be aware of that you always do interpretations of things that happens.  If you have a pessimistic or a naive point of view, you can be aware of the view and your statements.  Buddha and Wittgenstein were both aware of that different persons uses different perspectives.  But Buddha spoke about the "right 
Read more