Summary of the Articles by Albert Camus, Thomas Nagel and Prichard - Article Example

Philosophy, Essay Topic: Summary and Opinion on Each Article Myth of Sisyphus—Albert Camus The main problem with philosophers like Albert Camus is their reach is up to the level of their mind only. Spirituality is to be experienced and philosophy is countering one argument from another argument. Since all mind-level arguments have mind level counter arguments, to arrive at the final solution is impossibility. In “Myth of Sisyphus,” Albert Camus argues, “Happiness and absurd are two sons of the same earth. They are inseparable. It would be a mistake to say that happiness necessarily springs from the absurd discovery.”(439-440 n.p.) Analogy like pushing a boulder up a hill will not help to reveal the truth relating to human existence in this world, seemingly full of contradictions. Everything happening in this world has the cause and effect, and if a human being fails to understand it, it is the failure of the human being, not of the eternal system. As Camus reveals through Sisyphus, the acknowledgement of and rebellion against the Absurd, the exercise of free will in self-investment in the performance of life to find intrinsic meaning, despite the incomprehensibility of the world, is to live well. A human being is just a dot in this world. The world cannot run as per the desire of an individual nor the group of individuals. Everything happens in this world as it should. What is important is the process of living, and not complaining about the so-called absurdities. For example, the lotus is born in slush and mud; lives in it, and when in bloom enthralls the viewer. It does not complain, nor does it think of committing suicide. Why complain about the thorns? Think of the beauty and fragrance of the roses. One should not complain about one’s fundamental relationship with the world. The world cannot run on happiness. Happiness and sorrow are alternative beats of the same heart; they are inevitable parts of the same truth. One cannot think of darkness without the knowledge about what light is! So absurdity need not cause tension. Accept its existence, the thing or issue that looks absurd today, may prove the validity of its existence at a later stage. Understanding the meaning of human existence is not the process of one day or one year. It is a process that can be experienced instantly and the authentic process of living begins after that experience. One cannot say that the ocean is absurd because there are waves. Waves are the very nature of the ocean and one need to tackle the waves and do the swimming. Similarly, the fulfillment and non-fulfillment of one’s desire is part of the eternal function of nature. So, to invite crisis with the feeling of absurdity is a meaningless exercise. Camus describes “Suicide like the leap, is an acceptance at its extreme.”(435. n. p.) and art of living is the state exactly opposite to it. Nevertheless, finding the meaning of human existence cannot be a time bound program. Suicide is termination of life; as such it has no meaning. It is the domain of the coward. Suicide is a futile exercise, because one arrives in this world, without taking permission, and one cannot leave it without being permitted. Suffering is not useless; it is the process of renewal of human existence and part of the eternal struggle. Finally, Camus reveals the limitations of Absurd. Participation in action of life to find its true and full meaning is better than renunciation of action. The world is perfect and incomprehensibility is in the state of our mind. The human life is worth living, notwithstanding its trials and tribulations. Moral Luck -- Thomas Nagel What you do is important; but how you do what you do is more important. Thomas Nagel’s “Moral Luck,” concerns the second part of this sentence. No one knows the level of perfect morals (discipline) in life. As such carry on with the available discipline and perform actions to the best of one’s ability and judgment. Nagel discusses the issue of moral assessment. He argues, “Moral luck is like this because while there are various respects in which the natural objects of moral assessment are out of our control or influenced by what is out of our control, we cannot reflect on these facts without losing our grip on the judgments.”(805n.p.)But who is to assess the level of morals of the one who is assessing? What are the yardsticks? Introducing luck into the arena of morals is like accommodating the two passengers in one vehicle, who are inclined to travel in opposite directions. The hallmark of luck is uncertainty. Morals are a predefined set of rules and regulations. The moral attention one will receive depends upon the outcome of the incident. Moreover, one will participate in the incident with the object of getting favorable attention. An accident is an accident from the secular point of view; but the same is not an accident, but an incident from the transcendental point of view. Moral rules may be the guide to give punishment for the first part; as for the second part, it is not possible to measure the accountability. Circumstances out of one’s control can change or determine the moral worth of one’s behavior. Sometimes, one has to perform an action much against one’s conviction and such actions may be morally evaluated against the performer of the action. Is the performer to be blamed or condemned? He may be just an executing authority, and might not own direct bearing on morality of the actions and yet one may have to suffer the consequences of the action. By assessment Nagel means responsibility. This is vague and does not substantiate anything and he does not quantify the intuitions. The result of an action does not pre-suppose morality. The same action may be moral or immoral depending upon the circumstances. A specific action may be right in one context and wrong from another perspective. Good and bad effects are the consequences of such an action, and the happening of the event itself, is beyond any measurable yardstick. A person’s virtue is in tandem with his actions and not separate. A moral person may deliberately perform a bad action. That does not prove anything in finality as persons are morally complex. Nagel thinks more like a lawyer than a philosopher when he discusses a number of situations in which we are led to do our moral assessment of a person, or hold him overtly and covertly responsible, based on the result, meaning success of failure of some action. He is guided by the intensity of the results of the action in his moral judgment. This appears to me, the misconceived stand, as the same action at different times, and different places, by different groups is liable to be interpreted differently. His “Moral Luck,” theory, therefore, adds to confusion instead of providing tangible solutions. The subject of retributive justice, the portals of which he knocks at, belongs to the domain of spirituality, where human mind cannot reach and therefore it has no role. Instead of finding the solution, Nagel complicates the situation by offering unacceptable justifications. Nagel concludes that “the problem of moral luck cannot be understood without an internal conception of agency and its special connection with the moral attitudes as opposed to other types of value. I do not have such an account.”(810) He admits lack of spiritual knowledge and lack of total understanding of the issue. Does Moral Philosophy Rest on a Mistake? H. A. Prichard (1871-1947) Trying to provide justification for moral judgments, or validating morality can never be a perfect exercise. Morality is a mind-related subject and as such it is liable to invite arguments and counterarguments and it can never reach the stage of what would be considered as the final argument. Prichard tries to dissect the subject of moral philosophy and does the exercise of compartmentalization, as evaluation of the proposition in general is impossibility. Such statements should indicate a definite course of action to be followed. The distinction between common sense morality and philosophical morality needs to be correctly understood. Of the two, both are equally important, except the fact that violation of the later creates a psychological fear in the mind and it is authoritative. The example of morality of these two types are, ‘whatever I say is correct,’ says the philosophical morality. The commonsense morality says, ‘whatever correct is there in the world belongs to me’! College of experience and self-education is the training ground of commonsense morality and its syllabus is vast, with no particular philosophers or intellectuals to guide its course, as such it commands the respect of the common people. Philosophical morality rests on theory…..but in reality, what is theory after all? It is other man’s experience! Just as a common man is afraid of the moral philosophers, moral philosophers are afraid of violation of morality by the mass of people, as such they seek theoretical validation of morality. Moral philosophy has always been the concern of the famous philosophers. Plato asserts that morality is a kind of hoax the rulers put over their subjects in order to advance their interests. It is sort of the management tool to exercise authority. If the moral philosophy has the sword of fear behind it in the process of implementation of the moral code, in essence, it is no morality at all. Similarly, if the commonsense morality generates from self-interest, it does not command full respect. Since the quantum of self-interest varies from one individual to another, for reasons that are difficult to list out, common sense morality also loses its authority and impact. Commonsense moral code depends upon the level of progression of the concerned individual. The level of commitment to justice varies between two individuals. Hobbes takes a grim view of the state of morality. According to him it is self-interest dominated, and one follows moral principles for individual physical security and people’s obedience of moral codes is for attaining peace. According to Bishop Butler adhering to morality is human nature, and as such he presupposes the existence of some moral principles, and in the process it knocks down the foundation from which it is argued. Whatever is the level of argument, it is futile to attempt to turn ethical questions into technical ones. H. A. Prichard argues, “ The only remedy lies in actually getting into a situation which occasions in the obligation or—if our imagination be strong enough—in imagining ourselves in that situation, and then letting our moral capacities of thinking to do their work.”(474 n.p.)Every human being is born free, he is living embodiment of the free spirit, as such ethical questions and their solutions may vary from individual to individual, let alone from group to group. Works Cited Camas, Albert. Myth of Sisyphus. n. d. Nagel, Thomas. Moral Luck. n. d. Prichard, H.A. Does Moral Philosophy Rest on a Mistake? n. d. Read More