What We Owe To Each Other by T.M. Scanlon #1
Over the last year I have gotten more heavily into reading moral philosophy. As a result, some of my long-held views have been significantly challenged -- most especially my Nietzschean or nihilist intuitions have been challenged. Thus I have to admit that in the past I have not given sufficient attention to certain other views, especially more contemporary views, including, perhaps, though I need to read him more thoroughly to know for sure, the views of Derek Parfit. But, before I haul off and read thousands of pages of Parfit, I will start by looking at this book by Scanlon, which I am just now reading. But first, I'm going to describe the main consideration that has made me re-think things.
It all started with Kant. I listened to the Critique of Practical Reason on audiobook -- my eyes are such that physically reading is difficult, though there is no audiobook of Scanlon that I know of. The basic point is, do I have a reason to be rational in my moral behavior? If not, then so much for Kant and his followers. If, however, I can make a case that being rational about moral matters is a good thing... Well, here's the point, I, without even thinking much about it, assume that being rational or empirical is a good thing in virtually every other thing I think about, even if there is ultimately no PROOF of anything in those spheres -- why don't I give such latitude to morality?
In summary, then... I think I have been inconsistent in my overall thinking: I admit scientific reasoning, which lacks certainty, in scientific spheres, even generalizing scientific style thinking to my general thinking, but use the fact that philosophical certainty is lacking in moral matters as a reason to simply dismiss morals as squishy. I should at least give this more consideration
It all started with Kant. I listened to the Critique of Practical Reason on audiobook -- my eyes are such that physically reading is difficult, though there is no audiobook of Scanlon that I know of. The basic point is, do I have a reason to be rational in my moral behavior? If not, then so much for Kant and his followers. If, however, I can make a case that being rational about moral matters is a good thing... Well, here's the point, I, without even thinking much about it, assume that being rational or empirical is a good thing in virtually every other thing I think about, even if there is ultimately no PROOF of anything in those spheres -- why don't I give such latitude to morality?
In summary, then... I think I have been inconsistent in my overall thinking: I admit scientific reasoning, which lacks certainty, in scientific spheres, even generalizing scientific style thinking to my general thinking, but use the fact that philosophical certainty is lacking in moral matters as a reason to simply dismiss morals as squishy. I should at least give this more consideration
Comments
Post a Comment