llbbl
11-14-2002, 01:50 AM
I wanted to see how many page views I get with this "dry" topic. I am guessing 20 by Sunday. I bet also that most of ya's won't make it halfway through before getting bored or falling asleep or loosing interest. :)
I remember reading stuff like this not too long ago. :)
-------------------------------------------------------
The term "moral rationalism," in its broadest sense, applies to moral theories that emphasize the use of reason or a rational procedure in moral decision making. Most moral philosophers in the history of philosophy noted that human reason plays at least some part, often a dominant one. Plato argued that moral decision making involves a rational intuition of moral principles. Part of our rational faculty involves an intuitive sense by which we perceive abstract concepts that exist in a spirit-like realm. With this rational intuition we perceive moral principles, such as the notion of justice, the same way we rationally perceive basic mathematical truths, such as 2+2=4.
Aristotle held that we use reason to determine the best way to achieve the highest moral good. All people strive for happiness, and moral reasoning involves determining the best means for achieving that end. For example, if happiness is attained by being courageous, then my reason will tell me what actions I need to perform to be courageous, without being either too cowardly or too rash. Aristotle referred to this as practical reasoning since reason guides our actions (or practice). Medieval philosophers such as Aquinas suggested that we an innate rational faculty called synderesis that informs us of our highest moral obligation. Aquinas also argued that our reason plays a role in deducing secondary moral principles from primary ones, analogous to the way that theorems in geometry are deduced from more fundamental principles. For example, given the primary principle that "We ought to treat people benevolently," we can deduce the secondary principle that "We should help feed starving people," since feeding the starving is clearly an act of benevolence. If we then observe that Jones is starving, we can rationally deduce further that it is our obligation to help feed Jones.
In the 18th century moral philosophers such as Samuel Clarke and William Wollaston followed Plato's notion of moral reasoning and argued that morality involves a rational judgment about moral truths. Clarke, for example, argues that there exist three different classes of eternal relations. First, there are mathematical relations that involve concepts such as "less than," "greater than," or "equal to." If I state that "the height of my dog is less than the height of your horse," my statement is "fit" or "proportioned" to the ideal meaning of "less than." Second, there are religious relations, such as "infinite greatness." If I state that "God should be worshipped," then my statement is "fit" to the ideal meaning of "infinite greatness. Finally, there are eternal moral relations such as equality, promoting universal good, and helping others from danger. If you donate to charity, for example, then your action is "fit" to the notion of promoting universal good. If you steal, then your action is unfit to that moral relation. We judge the moral status of all of our actions based on these moral relations. Clarke argues further that all humans have self-evident knowledge of these relations, just as we have self-evident knowledge of mathematical and religious relations. Moral assessments, then, are purely rational.
18th century British philosopher David Hume challenged the longstanding view that morality involves a rational judgment. Hume argued that the role of reason in moral decisions is very limited, and that moral approval is only a feeling in the mind of the person that makes a moral judgment. In Book 3 of his Treatise of Human Nature (1740) and An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (1751) Hume launches five distinct attacks against the view that moral pronouncements are judgments of reason. The first argument is based on the restrictive function of our rational faculty in general. Reason involves only judgments of about reality: either of facts we perceive through our five senses, or of abstract relations in mathematics and logic. When we closely examine the contents of any morally significant action, such as a murder, we will never locate a special moral fact or relation about which we can make a judgment. All we will find is our own feeling. Contrary to Clarke, even if such abstract moral standards exist, humans do not have the faculties to perceive that particular breed of abstract principles.
Secondly, Hume argues that moral pronouncements do not parallel logical and mathematical reasoning. In these disciplines, we begin with known facts, such as theorems, and deduce from these a new and previously unknown fact. But with moral pronouncements, all the relevant facts must be first known. Thirdly, moral pronouncements more closely parallel our aesthetic pronouncements about beauty, which are clearly feelings and not rational judgments. Fourthly, moral pronouncements cannot be judgments about relations since we find exactly the same abstract relations in both moral and nonmoral situations. Finally, moral pronouncements cannot be rational judgments, since all moral actions are done for the final and foundational purpose of happiness. And no final or foundational purpose can be accounted for by reason. Hume concludes his discussion in the Treatise noting that rationalist discussions of morality all begin with statements of fact, such as "Jones is starving," and then conclude with a statement of obligation, such as "We should help feed Jones." According to Hume, it is impossible to rationally deduce statements of obligation from statements of fact. This view of Hume's is encapsulated in the dictum that, "Ought cannot be derived from is."
Hume's critique of moral rationalism had a strong impact on subsequent moral theories. Although 18th and 19th century theorists were not as extreme as Hume in completely dismissing reason in favor of emotion, they nevertheless offered accounts of moral reasoning that differed substantially from Clarke's view. For example, German philosopher Immanuel argued that, although emotional factors indeed do influence our conduct, we should resist this kind of sway. Instead, true moral actions are freely motivated only by reason when emotions and desires do not influence it. Jeremy Bentham argued that we rationally calculate the consequences of our actions. Depending on whether the consequences are good or bad, these rational calculations will tell us whether the action is right or wrong. Following Hume's lead, early 20th century analytic philosophers offered a moral theory called emotivism, which rejected reason in favor of emotion. According to emotivists such as C.L. Stevenson, when we make moral utterances, a key part of our meaning is that we are both reporting and expressing our feelings. For example, when I say that "Jones is a good man," I am reporting that I approve of Jones, and also emotionally expressing approval such as "hooray for Jones!"
In reaction to emotivist theories, several philosophers have recently placed a new emphasis on the role of reason in a theory called best reasons morality. The most notable proponent of this view is Kurt Baier in The Moral Point of View (1958). According to Baier, moral decision making involves a search for the best reasons for or against a course of action. Moral reasoning, then, parallels legal reasoning that involves collecting relevant facts, weighing arguments on both sides of the issue, and then judging.
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/m/m-ration.htm
I remember reading stuff like this not too long ago. :)
-------------------------------------------------------
The term "moral rationalism," in its broadest sense, applies to moral theories that emphasize the use of reason or a rational procedure in moral decision making. Most moral philosophers in the history of philosophy noted that human reason plays at least some part, often a dominant one. Plato argued that moral decision making involves a rational intuition of moral principles. Part of our rational faculty involves an intuitive sense by which we perceive abstract concepts that exist in a spirit-like realm. With this rational intuition we perceive moral principles, such as the notion of justice, the same way we rationally perceive basic mathematical truths, such as 2+2=4.
Aristotle held that we use reason to determine the best way to achieve the highest moral good. All people strive for happiness, and moral reasoning involves determining the best means for achieving that end. For example, if happiness is attained by being courageous, then my reason will tell me what actions I need to perform to be courageous, without being either too cowardly or too rash. Aristotle referred to this as practical reasoning since reason guides our actions (or practice). Medieval philosophers such as Aquinas suggested that we an innate rational faculty called synderesis that informs us of our highest moral obligation. Aquinas also argued that our reason plays a role in deducing secondary moral principles from primary ones, analogous to the way that theorems in geometry are deduced from more fundamental principles. For example, given the primary principle that "We ought to treat people benevolently," we can deduce the secondary principle that "We should help feed starving people," since feeding the starving is clearly an act of benevolence. If we then observe that Jones is starving, we can rationally deduce further that it is our obligation to help feed Jones.
In the 18th century moral philosophers such as Samuel Clarke and William Wollaston followed Plato's notion of moral reasoning and argued that morality involves a rational judgment about moral truths. Clarke, for example, argues that there exist three different classes of eternal relations. First, there are mathematical relations that involve concepts such as "less than," "greater than," or "equal to." If I state that "the height of my dog is less than the height of your horse," my statement is "fit" or "proportioned" to the ideal meaning of "less than." Second, there are religious relations, such as "infinite greatness." If I state that "God should be worshipped," then my statement is "fit" to the ideal meaning of "infinite greatness. Finally, there are eternal moral relations such as equality, promoting universal good, and helping others from danger. If you donate to charity, for example, then your action is "fit" to the notion of promoting universal good. If you steal, then your action is unfit to that moral relation. We judge the moral status of all of our actions based on these moral relations. Clarke argues further that all humans have self-evident knowledge of these relations, just as we have self-evident knowledge of mathematical and religious relations. Moral assessments, then, are purely rational.
18th century British philosopher David Hume challenged the longstanding view that morality involves a rational judgment. Hume argued that the role of reason in moral decisions is very limited, and that moral approval is only a feeling in the mind of the person that makes a moral judgment. In Book 3 of his Treatise of Human Nature (1740) and An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (1751) Hume launches five distinct attacks against the view that moral pronouncements are judgments of reason. The first argument is based on the restrictive function of our rational faculty in general. Reason involves only judgments of about reality: either of facts we perceive through our five senses, or of abstract relations in mathematics and logic. When we closely examine the contents of any morally significant action, such as a murder, we will never locate a special moral fact or relation about which we can make a judgment. All we will find is our own feeling. Contrary to Clarke, even if such abstract moral standards exist, humans do not have the faculties to perceive that particular breed of abstract principles.
Secondly, Hume argues that moral pronouncements do not parallel logical and mathematical reasoning. In these disciplines, we begin with known facts, such as theorems, and deduce from these a new and previously unknown fact. But with moral pronouncements, all the relevant facts must be first known. Thirdly, moral pronouncements more closely parallel our aesthetic pronouncements about beauty, which are clearly feelings and not rational judgments. Fourthly, moral pronouncements cannot be judgments about relations since we find exactly the same abstract relations in both moral and nonmoral situations. Finally, moral pronouncements cannot be rational judgments, since all moral actions are done for the final and foundational purpose of happiness. And no final or foundational purpose can be accounted for by reason. Hume concludes his discussion in the Treatise noting that rationalist discussions of morality all begin with statements of fact, such as "Jones is starving," and then conclude with a statement of obligation, such as "We should help feed Jones." According to Hume, it is impossible to rationally deduce statements of obligation from statements of fact. This view of Hume's is encapsulated in the dictum that, "Ought cannot be derived from is."
Hume's critique of moral rationalism had a strong impact on subsequent moral theories. Although 18th and 19th century theorists were not as extreme as Hume in completely dismissing reason in favor of emotion, they nevertheless offered accounts of moral reasoning that differed substantially from Clarke's view. For example, German philosopher Immanuel argued that, although emotional factors indeed do influence our conduct, we should resist this kind of sway. Instead, true moral actions are freely motivated only by reason when emotions and desires do not influence it. Jeremy Bentham argued that we rationally calculate the consequences of our actions. Depending on whether the consequences are good or bad, these rational calculations will tell us whether the action is right or wrong. Following Hume's lead, early 20th century analytic philosophers offered a moral theory called emotivism, which rejected reason in favor of emotion. According to emotivists such as C.L. Stevenson, when we make moral utterances, a key part of our meaning is that we are both reporting and expressing our feelings. For example, when I say that "Jones is a good man," I am reporting that I approve of Jones, and also emotionally expressing approval such as "hooray for Jones!"
In reaction to emotivist theories, several philosophers have recently placed a new emphasis on the role of reason in a theory called best reasons morality. The most notable proponent of this view is Kurt Baier in The Moral Point of View (1958). According to Baier, moral decision making involves a search for the best reasons for or against a course of action. Moral reasoning, then, parallels legal reasoning that involves collecting relevant facts, weighing arguments on both sides of the issue, and then judging.
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/m/m-ration.htm