Anthony Esolen from LifeSiteNews.com posted an interesting article on the current problem with moral discourse. In it he discusses how social considerations have intruded on popular moral discourse, much its detriment. I completely agree with him, but I don't think he really struck at the root of the problem, which I think has a lot to do with the way philosophy is taught.
I recently read a book by Taylor R. Marshall called Thomas Aquinas in 50 Pages: A Layman's Quick Guide to Thomism. He wrote about this exact phenomenon on page 56,
This is ludicrous, of course. Real moral decision making must be based on an external source and then refined over time, much as one would work out a muscle or develop a mental discipline. It's not too difficult to see how utilitarianism or consequentialism are both woefully inadequate in their shortsightedness. No human has the capacity to properly evaluate decisions in this context. If they did they would be something akin to Frank Hebert's God Emperor of Dune an unimaginably tedious novel of pontification on moralistic totalitarianism in the same vein as Atlas Shrugged, only harder SF.
Human beings must ground their moral decision making in something objective, that is outside their own individual experience, in order to have any sort of useful discourse on morality. These are simple truths that a person can discover through reason, if only they are taught how to reason. That sadly seems not to be the case for many people if what Mr. Esolen is saying is true. The ramifications of this will likely be lost on those without the proper moral grounding, which makes the case for objective morality so much more urgent before we drown in swill of relativism.
I recently read a book by Taylor R. Marshall called Thomas Aquinas in 50 Pages: A Layman's Quick Guide to Thomism. He wrote about this exact phenomenon on page 56,
The moral dilemmas he was referencing usually come in the form of choosing whether to save e a baby or ten retirees from impending disaster. This tends to impart upon the student that morality is something for each individual to be discovered in the moment, it is subjective, and you have to make it up as you go along.
Ethics is thus a learned and applied life of virtue. Nowadays, college freshmen are typically exposed to situational ethics in introductory philosophy courses. They are usually given difficult, even impossible, moral dilemmas and then asked to solve them. These kinds of “philosophical experiments” are misguided and juvenile. Their ultimate aim is to lead students into a form of utilitarianism—choosing the most useful option—or into a form of consequentialism—choosing the option with best-foreseen outcome. Both schools are very dangerous.
This is ludicrous, of course. Real moral decision making must be based on an external source and then refined over time, much as one would work out a muscle or develop a mental discipline. It's not too difficult to see how utilitarianism or consequentialism are both woefully inadequate in their shortsightedness. No human has the capacity to properly evaluate decisions in this context. If they did they would be something akin to Frank Hebert's God Emperor of Dune an unimaginably tedious novel of pontification on moralistic totalitarianism in the same vein as Atlas Shrugged, only harder SF.
Human beings must ground their moral decision making in something objective, that is outside their own individual experience, in order to have any sort of useful discourse on morality. These are simple truths that a person can discover through reason, if only they are taught how to reason. That sadly seems not to be the case for many people if what Mr. Esolen is saying is true. The ramifications of this will likely be lost on those without the proper moral grounding, which makes the case for objective morality so much more urgent before we drown in swill of relativism.
No comments:
Post a Comment