A Golden Manifesto, Part II

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Philosophy Now
Posts: 1205
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:49 am

A Golden Manifesto, Part II

Post by Philosophy Now »

Mary Midgley continues her recollection of a golden age of female philosophy.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/117/A_ ... to_Part_II
d63
Posts: 755
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: A Golden Manifesto, Part II

Post by d63 »

Dear Editor: Having read Mary Midgley’s A Golden Manifesto 2 (issue 117), I’m willing to rethink my previous Humean stance on the is/ought disconnect, that is to the extent of recognizing a feedback loop between the emotional content of a given principle and the associated facts. For example, while we may hold certain feelings about torture or assault, we can certainly point to such facts as the very real pain it causes as is apparent in the cries and twisted expressions of distress they evoke.  


However, we are talking about a feedback loop. So I take pause when Midgley seems to suggest a first cause model with moral principles being extracted from the facts. And she broaches this with Anscombe’s debt analogy. Put in mind here that while the agreement to pay a debt may be a fact (it could be on paper), it is still a human construct. So while there may be all kinds of consequential facts concerning the why of duty (i.e. the consequences of neglecting it), the disagreeable nature of them are propped up by feelings. The term “disagreeable” would seem to confirm this.  


But I find more cause for pause when considering the social/political implications in play as Midgley takes up a critical stance towards the uses of the naturalistic fallacy and the post-structuralist abandonment of human nature. Consider, for instance, why academics have embraced the Humean is/ought disconnect in the first place: the authoritarian folly that can occur when we drift from the role of facts in value judgments to confusing value judgments for facts. Think of the naturalistic fallacy involved in the various forms of Social Darwinism based on the competitive aspect of nature. Or even eugenics based on natural selection. But the most telling example is Ayn Rand's objectivism which jumps, erroneously, from an embrace of facts to general prescriptions.  It’s like saying:  


"1+1=2; Laissez Faire Capitalism is the only means by which man can achieve greatness."  


Too many attempts to objectify values become little more than power plays, language games in which an embrace of so-called facts are given privilege over how one may FEEL about a given principle. Granted, Midgley’s ends are nowhere near as nefarious. And I get the desire to give moral principles some kind of fact-like status in the face of very real evil. But I doubt such moral facts would do much to stave off the human praxis (the self indulgence) at play in it. So we might want to retain the essence of Hume's disconnect as bastion against more odious agendas that may twist well-intended efforts, such as Midgley's, to their own ends. 
marjoram_blues
Posts: 1629
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: A Golden Manifesto, Part II

Post by marjoram_blues »

At last - why has it taken so long for someone to put into words exactly what I have fe!t for...AGES.
Thank you, Mary, for this brilliant piece laced with humour. Tatties Rule.

And yes, your final question is most pertinent...
Post Reply