In his writings on ethics, entitled ethics Thomas Nagel discusses ethics. He starts out quite bluntly by saying that what he is about to write “will be very general and not very complete”, but that he hopes that it will prove that the enterprise of ethics is not hopeless. Nagel first defines four reasons for our morality. The first is autonomy, or the things that we do for ourselves, the second is obligation, or the special consideration that we have toward certain people in our lives, the third is neutral values, or universal values for the common good, and finally deontology, or the reasons that we treat other people decently.
His main argument is between the two extremes, autonomy and deontology. This argument boils down essentially to objectivity versus subjectivity. The subjectivity of autonomy, and one’s personal desires and appetites versus the objectivity of moral absolutes which help govern our actions. Nagel believes that we live within a delicate balance of the two. Our own personal desires for things that we want to do but have no real effect on the good of the world, must be balanced with the moral considerations of human nature. In general, Nagel would say that most people live within the confines of this balance, making sure that your appetites do not get in the way of your morality and that your morality does not keep you from getting what you need. For example, consider the overly good person who does not take bread that has fallen off of the back of a truck even on the verge of starvation. Or the counterexample of the sociopath who does not consider any morals on his or her path to whatever it is that he or she desires. Nagel would consider both of these people outliers and both of them foolish for they stray from the natural balance between desires and morals.
Nagel also says that politics is inextricably tied to ethics. He says that “there can be no ethics without politics”. Nagel says that these two things are tied because they both have to do with human interaction. The institutions that people live in determine the morals that they live by. And therefore, politics determines ethics. This would suggest that under varying political systems the people may have different ethical philosophies. This would also suggest that there is no universal, natural morals which determine the way people act. Nagel suggests that it would be a folly to try and invent a universal human nature to try and define our political theory. However, he does believe that there could be a partial solution; however he never postulates what it could be. I think that I agree with Nagel’s contention that there is no such thing as universal morals. I believe that a persons’ moral code is determined by the environment that they live in and the experiences that they have and not a natural law. In turn, I also believe that there is no such thing as a perfect government which coincides with a universal human nature.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I agree with your last comment that there is no such thing as universal morals. Like you said, ones environment plays a key role in the actions he or she takes. However, this seems to contradict what Nagel is trying to argue in the text. When he was focusing on deontology, he said that "deontological restrictions apply to everyone" (178). If one person should not do something because it is morally evil, than another person should not be able to do it either regardless of the circumstances. One thing that you didn't mention in your post that I found to be a key part of his argument of deontology are intentions. Nagel says that "to violate deontological constraints, one must maltreat someone else intentionally" (179). Basically, he is saying that if someone purposely maltreats someone else as a means to arrive at an end, it is morally wrong. But if, for example, one's intention is good, and in the action of pursuing this good unintentionally harms someone else, this is not a violation of the deontological constraints. Nagel also says that "constraints apply to intentionally permitting as well as intentionally doing harm" (180). In other words, it is just as bad to hurt someone else and to let someone else hurt another. Basically, Nagel is trying to outline the importance of taking others into consideration when we act.
I like what you say about humans having no universal morality. Basically, morality is not a strictly black and white matter; there are shades of gray. Although I agree with your main argument that there is no universal human nature and thus no universal human moral code, I think you overlooked several aspects of Nagel's explication of the deontation argument including intentions. The intention and foresaw consequences of actions are very important to consider in matters regarding morality. If one understands the intentions behind specific acts, it is easier to judge and evaluate whether the act falls under what is typically acceptable under basic human moral standards.
I agree that there is no universal morals. Each person is unique and different, and therefore, it would be nearly impossible to have universal morals. However, I disagree with Nagel on the fact that we live in a balance between subjectivity of autonomy and objectivity of moral absolutes. Especially in the modern world it would seem there are many people who disregard the moral considerations of human nature. Many people are out for themselves. Is this a contradiction to Nagel's writing?
I also believe that Nagel would rightly consider your two examples as examples of foolish individuals. I say this because these two examples concern two people who don't use the rationality that they possess and are, to a certain extent, deontologists. Unlike Ann Davis' views which consists of a society that strictly follows deontology, Nagel's society would probably be the society which will potentially minimize wrongdoings. When both subjectivity and objectivity work together an individual will come up with a rational decision which may deviate from the objectivity aspect but will ultimately bring about a good result.
I agree with Natalie and Grant, intention is a clarifying point in the text. Nagel says that in order for an act to be intentional and evil, it must be guided; this means that the goal of the act was evil. IF the effect of an act is evil but not intentional, it is not evil because the aim of the act is not towards evil. (180) An act not aimed at evil is repelled by evil. "But the essence of evil is that it should repel us... So when we aim at evil we are swimming head-on against the normative current." (182) Only the ends of evil acts can be evil.
So I made a pretty bold statement with my whole “No universal human nature” thing, a statement that would go against a number of philosophers, theologians and class mates who are a great deal smarter than me. Most of you seem to agree with me that within the context of varying societal norms and morals, there can be no universal or complete moral and human nature. This makes sense when considering the considerable difference in the rhetoric between different types of political systems. Natalie mentions that Nagel says that there are deontological restrictions that apply to everyone- I believe that Nagel would say that while this is true, these restrictions should be contextualized within a certain social system. This seems to agree with Aristotle’s notion that there are societal models that people follow within communities. A community of thieves has a different moral doctrine and manifesto than a community of nuns; what is valued in these communities are completely contradictory.
Post a Comment