structure for 'Metaethics'    |     alphabetical list of themes    |     unexpand these ideas

22. Metaethics / A. Ethics Foundations / 2. Source of Ethics / b. Rational ethics

[pure reason produces ethical values and principles]

33 ideas
Stoics say that folly alone is evil [Stoic school, by Sext.Empiricus]
     Full Idea: The Stoics say that folly alone is evil.
     From: report of Stoic school (fragments/reports [c.200 BCE]) by Sextus Empiricus - Against the Ethicists (one book) II.90
     A reaction: This is Socrates' intellectualist view of weakness of will. Is the evil in the succumbing to a temptation, or in the intellectual error that leads to it? 'Folly' in English is stupid action, not just stupid belief.
The Soul reasons about the Right, so there must be some permanent Right about which it reasons [Plotinus]
     Full Idea: Since there is a Soul which reasons upon the right and good - for reasoning is an enquiry into the rightness and goodness of this rather than that - there must exist some pemanent Right, the source and foundation of this reasoning in our soul.
     From: Plotinus (The Enneads [c.245], 5.1.11)
     A reaction: This is pretty close the Kant's concept of 'the moral order within me', and Plotinus even sees it as rational. Presumably this right is 'permanent' because the revelatlons of reason about it are necessary truths.
For humans good is accordance with reason, and bad is contrary to reason [Aquinas]
     Full Idea: A human being's good is existing in accordance with reason, while what is bad for a human being is whatever is contrary to reason.
     From: Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologicae [1265], Ia IIae.Q18.5c), quoted by Kretzmann/Stump - Aquinas, Thomas 13
     A reaction: For anyone who thought Kant invented the idea that morality derives from reason. This idea of Aquinas is a fairly precise echo of the stoic view (which influenced Kant). Is there a circularity? Is it irrational because bad, or bad because irrational?
We seek our own advantage, and virtue is doing this rationally [Spinoza]
     Full Idea: Acting absolutely from virtue is nothing else in us but acting, living, and preserving our being (these three signify the same thing) by the guidance of reason, from the foundation of seeking one's own advantage.
     From: Baruch de Spinoza (The Ethics [1675], IV Pr 24)
     A reaction: The influence of stoicism is obvious here, that we live according to our nature, but our nature is rational. Spinoza doesn't seem to understand the pure altruism of lovers and parents.
Men only agree in nature if they are guided by reason [Spinoza]
     Full Idea: Only insofar as men live according to the guidance of reason, must they always agree in nature.
     From: Baruch de Spinoza (The Ethics [1675], IV Pr 35)
     A reaction: A nice expression of the guiding idea of the Enlightenment - that consensus is the defining characteristic of rationality. Spinoza's politics emerges from this idea.
We can demand a reason for any moral rule [Locke]
     Full Idea: There cannot any one moral Rule be proposed, whereof a Man may not justly demand a Reason.
     From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 1.03.04)
     A reaction: There may be some things which are indisputable duties or prohibitions, and yet people be quite bewildered when asked for the reason behind the rule. Loyalty, incest, courage.
Pursuit of happiness is the highest perfection of intellectual nature [Locke]
     Full Idea: The highest perfection of intellectual nature lies in a careful and constant pursuit of true and solid happiness.
     From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 2.21.51)
     A reaction: A nice remark, in which the word 'intellectual' is particularly interesting. Locke is inclined to equate happiness with pleasure and the absence of pain.
Morality can be demonstrated, because we know the real essences behind moral words [Locke]
     Full Idea: Morality is capable of demonstration as well as mathematics, since the precise real essence of the things moral words stand for may be perfectly known, and so the congruity or incongruity of the things themselves be certainly discovered.
     From: John Locke (Essay Conc Human Understanding (2nd Ed) [1694], 3.11.16)
     A reaction: This is a rare case of Locke saying that we can know real essences (he apparently having said the same about triangles). I increasingly like the notion that real essences lead to true knowledge in every sphere of our activities, including the moral.
Rational morality is OK for brainy people, but ordinary life can't rely on that [Rousseau]
     Full Idea: Although it might be appropriate for Socrates and minds of his stature to acquire virtue through reason, the human race would long ago have ceased to exist, if its preservation had depended solely on the reasonings of its members.
     From: Jean-Jacques Rousseau (Discourse on the Origin of Inequality [1754], Part I)
     A reaction: He takes our natural compassion to be the basis of morality. Hume combines that with a natural social prudence. Apes live successfully together in groups, without a Socrates. See MacIntyre on the failure of reasoned morality.
Kant united religion and philosophy, by basing obedience to law on reason instead of faith [Taylor,R on Kant]
     Full Idea: Kant united the two ideas of virtue (as being and as doing) into the idea of a law that is founded not upon faith but upon reason. Thus in one stroke he united the seemingly irreconcilable philosophical and religious ethics, preserving the best of both.
     From: comment on Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785]) by Richard Taylor - Virtue Ethics: an Introduction Ch.8
     A reaction: An interesting analysis that sounds exactly right. Taylor's point is that Kant subjects himself to an authority, when the underpinnings of the authority are no longer there. There is a religious strand in the altruistic requirements of utilitarianism too.
The categorical imperative says nothing about what our activities and ends should be [MacIntyre on Kant]
     Full Idea: As to what activities we ought to engage in, what ends we should pursue, the categorical imperative seems to be silent.
     From: comment on Immanuel Kant (Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals [1785]) by Alasdair MacIntyre - A Short History of Ethics Ch.14
     A reaction: I think this is the fatal objection to Kant's view. He says, for example, that promise-breaking is inconsistent with a belief that promises are good, but who said promises are good? No ethical system can get started without values.
Only human reason can confer value on our choices [Kant, by Korsgaard]
     Full Idea: Kant argues that only human reason is in a position to confer value on the objects of human choice.
     From: report of Immanuel Kant (Critique of Practical Reason [1788]) by Christine M. Korsgaard - Aristotle and Kant on the Source of Value 8 'Kant'
     A reaction: If the source of value is humans, then it is not immediately clear why it is only our reason that does the conferring. What is the status of a choice on which reason fails to confer value? The idea is that reason, unlike desire, has intrinsic value.
Reason can be vicious, and great crimes have to be rational [Schopenhauer]
     Full Idea: Reasonable and vicious are quite consistent with each other, in fact, only through their union are great and far-reaching crimes possible.
     From: Arthur Schopenhauer (On the Basis of Morality [1841], p.83), quoted by Christopher Janaway - Schopenhauer 7 'Against'
     A reaction: This is opposed to Kant, who always looks wildly optimistic in his hope that high rationality entails a morally good will. Good people seem to have a fairly irrational empathy with their fellow citizens.
To deduce morality from reason is blasphemy, because it is holy, and far above reason [Schopenhauer]
     Full Idea: To deduce from reason [Vernunft] the moral element in conduct is blasphemy. In this element there is expressed the better consciousness which lies far above all reason. expresses itself in conduct as holiness, and is the true salvation of the world.
     From: Arthur Schopenhauer (Manuscript remains [1855], I p.47), quoted by Peter B. Lewis - Schopenhauer 3
     A reaction: Aimed at Kant. Only Plato could inspire a non-religious person to write about morality is such terms. Maybe also the stoic ideal of beautiful deeds (given the supreme value Schopenhauer placed on the arts).
Philosophy grasps the limits of human reason, and values are beyond it [Nietzsche]
     Full Idea: All the supreme problems of value are beyond human reason. …To grasp the limits of human reason, only this is philosophy.
     From: Friedrich Nietzsche (The Anti-Christ [1889], 55)
     A reaction: The single most powerful idea in the writings of Nietzsche. Reason and truth are values. Why do we value philosophy? There is no escaping Nietzsche's question.
Intellect is tied to morality, because it requires good memory and powerful imagination [Nietzsche]
     Full Idea: One must have a good memory to be able to keep the promises one has given. One must have strong powers of imagination to be able to have pity. So closely is morality bound to the quality of the intellect.
     From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 059)
     A reaction: Nice to see him say that strong powers of imagination are an 'intellectual' quality, which I think is not properly understood by the more geeky sort of intellectual.
De Sade said it was impossible to rationally argue against murder [Adorno/Horkheimer]
     Full Idea: De Sade trumpeted far and wide the impossibility of deriving from reason any fundamental argument against murder.
     From: T Adorno / M Horkheimer (Dialectic of Enlightenment [1944], p.118)
     A reaction: [They focus on 'Juliette'] This is a big problem for utilitarians, because murdering an unhappy person may maximise happiness. Presumably a maniac could will universal carnage, and thus thwart Kant.
Morality gives everyone reasons to act, irrespective of their desires [Foot, by Hacker-Wright]
     Full Idea: In her early work she also defends moral rationalism, which is the idea that morality gives reasons for action to everyone, even those who lack the desire to do what is right.
     From: report of Philippa Foot (Moral Beliefs [1959]) by John Hacker-Wright - Philippa Foot's Moral Thought Intro
     A reaction: Evidently a rejection of the Humean view that only a desire can motivate action, including moral action. There is an ongoing debate about whether reasons can cause anything, or motivate anything. I think the contents of reasons pull us towards action.
We all have reason to cultivate the virtues, even when we lack the desire [Foot, by Hacker-Wright]
     Full Idea: Foot advocates the view that anyone has reason to cultivate the virtues, even if they lack the desire to do so at a given moment.
     From: report of Philippa Foot (Moral Beliefs [1959], Pt II) by John Hacker-Wright - Philippa Foot's Moral Thought 2 'Concepts'
     A reaction: The view which she soon abandoned, but then returned to later. It specifically repudiates the view of Hume, that only desires can motivate. I'm unsure, because the concept of 'reason' strikes me as too imprecise. She sees self-interest as a reason.
Reason is not a motivator of morality [Foot, by Hacker-Wright]
     Full Idea: In her middle period she changed her mind, and attacks moral rationalism.
     From: report of Philippa Foot (Morality as system of hypothetical imperatives [1972]) by John Hacker-Wright - Philippa Foot's Moral Thought Intro
     A reaction: That is, she doubted whether moral reasons are sufficient to motivate moral actions, which presumably therefore need desires, as the Humeans claimed. Reasons rely on merely hypothetical rules.
Rejecting moral rules may be villainous, but it isn't inconsistent [Foot]
     Full Idea: The man who rejects morality because he sees no reason to obey its rules can be convicted of villainy but not of inconsistency.
     From: Philippa Foot (Morality as system of hypothetical imperatives [1972], p.161)
     A reaction: This is 'middle period' Foot, when she decided that Hume was right about the need for a desire as moral motivator. Before and after this time, she thought there were reasons to be moral, as well as desires.
Moral reason is not just neutral, because morality is part of the standard of rationality [Foot, by Hacker-Wright]
     Full Idea: In her late period she again reverses her thoughts on moral rationalism; …rather than a neutral rationality which fulfils desires, she argues that morality ought to be thought of as part of the standard of rationality itself.
     From: report of Philippa Foot (Natural Goodness [2001]) by John Hacker-Wright - Philippa Foot's Moral Thought Intro
     A reaction: This comes much closer to the Greek and Aristotelian concept of logos. They saw morality as inseparable from our judgements about how the world is. All 'sensible' thinking will involve what is good for humanity.
Practical rationality must weigh both what is morally and what is non-morally required [Foot]
     Full Idea: Different considerations are on a par, in that judgement about what is required by practical rationality must take account of their interaction: of the weight of the ones we call non-moral as well as those we call moral.
     From: Philippa Foot (Natural Goodness [2001], 1)
     A reaction: Her final settled view of rationalism in morality, it seems. The point is that moral considerations are not paramount, because she sees possible justifications for ignoring moral rules (like 'don't lie') in certain practical situations.
Morality isn't based on reason; moral indignation is quite unlike disapproval of irrationality [Frankfurt]
     Full Idea: The ultimate warrant for moral principles cannot be found in reason. The sort of opprobrium that attaches to moral transgressions is quite unlike the sort of opprobrium that attaches to the requirements of reason.
     From: Harry G. Frankfurt (The Reasons of Love [2005], 2.5 n6)
     A reaction: More like a piece of evidence than a proper argument. We may not feel indignant if someone fails a maths exam, but we might if they mess up the arithmetic of our bank account, even though they meant well.
The failure of Enlightenment attempts to justify morality will explain our own culture [MacIntyre]
     Full Idea: A central thesis of this book is that the breakdown of the project (of 1630 to 1850) of an independent rational justification of morality provided the historical background against which the predicaments of our own culture can become intelligible.
     From: Alasdair MacIntyre (After Virtue: a Study in Moral Theory [1981], Ch. 4)
     A reaction: Possibly the most important question of our times is whether the Enlightenment failed. MacIntyre's claim is followed by an appeal for a return to Aristotelian/Thomist virtues. Continentals seem to have responded by sliding into relativism.
Euripides's Medea is a key case of reason versus the passions [Annas]
     Full Idea: Euripides's Medea has remained a key case for discussion of reason and the passions.
     From: Julia Annas (Ancient Philosophy: very short introduction [2000], Ch.1)
Reason and morality do not coincide; immorality can be reasonable, with an ideology [Kekes]
     Full Idea: A central assumption of Western moral thought is mistaken: the requirements of reason and morality do not coincide. Immorality need not be unreasonable. ...Malevolent motives in combination with ideologies supply reasons for doing evil.
     From: John Kekes (The Human Condition [2010], 06.5)
     A reaction: I presume that Kant would say the malevolent motives are irrational. If I perform an evil act because someone gives me a stupid reason for doing it, I am not thereby rational because I am acting for a reason. Wrong.
Practical reason is not universal and impersonal, because it depends on what success is [Kekes]
     Full Idea: The assumption that the requirements of reason are universal and impersonal ...is false of practical reason that aims at successful action. Whether a belief is true depends on the facts. Whether an action is successful depends on what success consists in.
     From: John Kekes (The Human Condition [2010], 08.5)
     A reaction: Kekes is trying to eliminate the Kantian idea that reason can lead us to the 'right' thing to do. He rightly points to the complex demands of human, cultural and personal values.
If morality has to be rational, then moral conflicts need us to be irrational and immoral [Kekes]
     Full Idea: The absurdity follows [from Kant's categorical imperative] that in the case of moral conflicts reason and morality require us to act irrationally and immorally.
     From: John Kekes (The Human Condition [2010], 10.4)
     A reaction: We can't pick one from two equals if we must have a reason for the preference, but that does not make it 'irrational' to choose one of them, when it doesn't matter which one is chosen. Taking one of the cheese sandwiches is not irrational.
Moral internalism says a judgement of rightness is thereby motivating [Smith,M]
     Full Idea: Moral 'internalism' says if an agent judges an action as right in some circumstance, then they are either thereby motivated to do it, or they are irrational (e.g. their will is weak).
     From: Michael Smith (The Moral Problem [1994], 3.1)
     A reaction: [Somewhat reworded] So the motivation comes from an internal judgement, not from external factors. Is it not tautological that 'this is the right thing to do' means it should be done (ceteris paribus)?
'Rationalism' says the rightness of an action is a reason to perform it [Smith,M]
     Full Idea: Moral 'rationalism' says if an action is right for agents in some circumstances, then there is a reason for the agents to do it.
     From: Michael Smith (The Moral Problem [1994], 3.1)
     A reaction: That is, there is not merely a motivation to act (the 'internalist' view), but there is a reason to act. Smith calls both views the 'practicality requirement' of normal moral judgements. Smith defends the rationalist view.
Maybe final value rests on the extrinsic property of being valued by a rational agent [Korsgaard, by Orsi]
     Full Idea: Korsgaard argues for the ultimate dependence of final value on the extrinsic property of being valued by a rational agent.
     From: report of Christine M. Korsgaard (Creating the Kingdom of Ends [1992]) by Francesco Orsi - Value Theory 2.3 n4
     A reaction: This hyper-Kantian view doesn't strike me as very plausible. Not philosophical theory which entirely cuts animals out of the story has much appeal for me.
We don't condemn people for being bad at reasoning [Finlayson]
     Full Idea: We do not morally disapprove of people who are incompetent reasoners.
     From: James Gordon Finlayson (Habermas [2005], Ch.6:83)
     A reaction: Well, we don't morally disapprove simply of their lack of reasoning ability, but we may morally disapprove of their actions, which have arisen entirely from the disability.