Method and Moral Theory by Dale Jamieson - Article Example

Close Reading and Written Critique Name Code + Course Name Professor Date Close Reading and Written Critique In the article “Method and Moral Theory” by Dale Jamieson, he attempts to address the different questions about moral theories that are ignored by most of the thinkers. He uses the article to recognize the importance of using moral language, the nature, as well as the value of different contemporary moral theories. In addition, Jamieson identifies the benefits of normative principles and the responsibilities of human beings in relation to the future generations. The article demonstrates that most of the thinkers are more concerned with addressing numerous issues, for instance, the meaning of the moral languages adopted in their models1. Further, they seek to define the type of moral rules that they should incorporate into their work. Jamieson argues in the article that a majority of the philosophers are concerned with the credibility of their theories and how the public view their judgments. The public criticizes the work of these thinkers and decides whether the arguments presented are reliable or will cause more harm. He argues that scholars need to rethink their work and identify the building blocks of their moral models as well as recognizing their importance if at all they have. An in-depth research by Jamieson identifies some of the reasons why moral theories are ignored. He argued that the widespread agreement on the nature of ethical ideas and the acceptability of some practices it led to them being considered as abstract structures. It is because their role was the supply of justification rather than motivation1. Jamieson suggested an increase in anxiety related to the nature, status and role of these theories. Some of the Great thinkers including Bernard Williams argue that he doubts the importance of these models while others such as John McDowell and Jonathan Dancy see the little role. More philosophers attack these moral theories such as Susan Wolf and Robert Fullinwider, who considers such arguments illicit. Jamieson conducts surveys and addresses issues that he thinks are central and real. He describes the natures of theories, questions of the method as well as the roles of examples. Under the nature of moral principles, Jamieson demonstrates that there is a dominant conception of these ideas that are presented by thinkers from all corners of the world. Jamieson argues that although most of the philosophers have criticized moral theories, there is still some little defense. The dominant conception supports moral principles by arguing that they are abstract structures that outline the actions and results in appropriate categories2. They help categorize the rights, wrong, virtuous, good, forbidden, worst, best as well as obligatory. Further, they rank them according to their goodness, virtuousness, and rightness among others. He argues that different theories categorize elements differently for instance the utilitarianism identifies the results of virtue as primary. He further argues that the role of moral theorists under this conception is to identify some models as explicit thus strengthening them. It is achieved by analyzing evidence as well as scrutinizing the arguments. In addition, he noted that moral theorists` reasoning is mainly based on economic reasoning. The dominant conception is implicit, and he relates it to the work of past philosophers such as Derek Pariff, Judith Jarvis Thomson as well as Richard Brandt among others. Jamieson goes further in identifying the challenges of moral theories. He defines feminist sensibility as a problem that occurred among the philosophers in the late 1970s. The other challenge was the widespread skepticism related to the authority that occurred in 1960s. The scholars who were affected by these problems differentiated and the majority emphasized on motivation rather than obligations2. They argued that their motivation was based on Hume and Aristotle rather than Kant. Jamieson demonstrates that these thinkers began to view morality as a kind of social practice rather than an expression of models. The first influential critiques of the dominant conception were from the article Modern Moral Philosophy by G.E.M Anscombe. Anscombe refutes the design law of ethics, which argues that his view is without the notion of a lawgiver. He further noted that the argument considering moral obligation authoritative led to the introduction of religious ethics. Other philosophers who consent to Anscombe`s argument is Zygmund Bauman, who demonstrated the use of ethical theories by people in power3. He argues that this causes uncertainty and ambiguity. In his article, Anscombe criticizes the idea of issuing power to the moral wise by saying that it is not just for philosophers to make ethics their concern3. It is because none of them would entrust the decisions of whether right or wrong to other people without investigations. He denotes that high ethics proves a way of undermining the moral responsibilities of people. Anscombe demonstrates that ethics is the only thing that tells the truth about situations in order to achieve well. He further identifies values as a code of law that identifies the correct behaviors at all times. It differentiates the good from evil, and this task fits philosophers who have a unique position in the community as compared to the ordinary people. Law governs their moral behaviors, and they have the ability to tell how well people observe the moral laws. Further, Anscombe argues that these people are knowledgeable than the ordinary people. In conclusion, Anscombe suggests that if moral philosophy is to be considered secular, it should relate to Aristotle rather than Sidgwick3. In case it turns otherwise, it should be kept aside until there is an adequate philosophy of psychology. Philosophers Alasdair Macintyre and Bernard Williams, argues that moral theory has no authority. Further, Macintyre claims that there is no moral authority in liberal societies. He urges on developing liberalism meaning simple narratives and ways of living. On the other hand, Williams applies that pluralism and liberalism to address the prospects for living an ethical life. They both identify the modern moral philosophy as part of the issue. Williams` suggestions resemble those of Anscombe whereby he demonstrates that philosophy should not develop ethical theories because they have no authority to do so. Despite the similarities, Anscombe and Williams differ in numerous aspects. Anscombe argues that morality does not exist4. On the other hand, Williams differentiates the two by saying that morality is a modern expression of ethical that can make claims and obligations that may distract people`s commitments and integrity4. Moreover, he demonstrates that the law conception of morality is tenable while Anscombe argues that it is untenable without God. Jamieson identifies the views of Carol Gilligan, who he says that influenced the traditional moral theories through feminist critique. She argued that women have a different moral response as compared to males. Moreover, Jamieson demonstrates that thinkers like Annette Baier also played a significant role in the critique of the traditional theories. Baier equally argued that when male ethics concentrated on obligations, women were more concerned with love. Jamieson concluded by arguing that the challenges facing the traditional moral theories plays an important role in helping individuals rethink on the link between the moral practice and theory. In the article, Jamieson demonstrates that moral reasoning occurs to everyone at all times. It helps people make choices of what they would like to do, when to do it as well as how to do to others in order to feel good if the same was reversed. Moral theorizing occurs when people explain their actions and choices. He argues that most of the people are led by pragmatic considerations instead of looking for the right answers to the questions that thinkers attempt to address. Jamieson identifies this as the source of the difference between moral practices and theories. He says that moral philosopher’s use and indirect moral theorizing to address these issues. In the article, Jamieson also explores the two influential approaches that aid philosophers in theory construction. They include the foundationalism and coherentism. He argues that Foundationalism is a view that systems of belief are justified while other believes that there is no need justification5. He explains this approach with the help of an example of Paul, who firmly believes that murdering his neighbor is wrong. He urges that the moral thinking chain is justified as people extend from the general belief that killing is wrong that is derived from a particular idea that killing a neighbor is wrong. Jamieson identifies some problems with the approach. The issue is that some ideas require no justification. It is because some of these believe are traditionally self-evident or self-justifying. The other issue is that deriving a moral theory from self-justifying truths. He argues that logical truths prove obvious facts, but they are not fit enough for the derivation of moral theory. In such a case, the theorist must show beyond the logical truth. It leads to disagreements with such beliefs especially those based on anything else other than logical truths. For instance, a belief that it is not going to rain and it happens that it is raining, that is a logical truth. The other influential approach in the construction of a theory is the coherentism. A Great thinker known as John Rawls explained it5. Rawls argued that the method was a view that beliefs can be justified only by their relation to other ideas. It differs with the claims of foundationalism that argues that some beliefs are justified independently. Rawls suggests starting with a set of particular beliefs then developing principles in relation to them then finally reviewing the ideas and principles of each other until equilibrium is attained66. He identified numerous issues related to the approach. A majority of the philosophers disagree with the method arguing that it is impossible to revise the two in light of each other and come up with a model that will be convincing. Holmgren responded to these problems suggesting that there is a need to couple reflective equilibrium with a dedication to objective moral truths. The response is not convincing as more questions arise on how to identify objective moral truths. Both foundationalism and coherentism approaches have strong defenders and thus try to use examples in an attempt to identify what individual moral intuitions are. Both apply different sets of patterns6. One of the examples used in evaluating moral theories from a real life situation is ostensive. It is argued that an example of this category would be exposing an atomic bomb in Hiroshima state. The other category is a hypothetical example. It demonstrates a person`s decision if faced with a difficult moral dilemma. The third example is imaginary. They involve logical possibilities that could occur in other world different than ours. Individual tend to have intuitions that are untrustworthy. People are dragged from the real world to counterfactual ones. The identified problem of imaginary examples is that tendentiously described due to the function they intend to perform. Jamieson concludes by saying that hypothetical examples are more grounded as compared imaginary examples, and hence it is difficult for people to trust their intuitions in cases of imaginary situations. Bibliography Anscombe, G.E.M.” Modern Moral Philosophy. Ethics, Religion and Politics”. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. In her Collected Philosophy Papers 3 (2012): 26-42. Jamieson, Dale. “Method and Moral Theory”. In Singer P., ed. A  Companion to ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2010. Rawls, John P. “A Theory of Justice”. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University, 2011. Read More

He describes the natures of theories, questions of the method as well as the roles of examples. Under the nature of moral principles, Jamieson demonstrates that there is a dominant conception of these ideas that are presented by thinkers from all corners of the world. Jamieson argues that although most of the philosophers have criticized moral theories, there is still some little defense. The dominant conception supports moral principles by arguing that they are abstract structures that outline the actions and results in appropriate categories2.

They help categorize the rights, wrong, virtuous, good, forbidden, worst, best as well as obligatory. Further, they rank them according to their goodness, virtuousness, and rightness among others. He argues that different theories categorize elements differently for instance the utilitarianism identifies the results of virtue as primary. He further argues that the role of moral theorists under this conception is to identify some models as explicit thus strengthening them. It is achieved by analyzing evidence as well as scrutinizing the arguments.

In addition, he noted that moral theorists` reasoning is mainly based on economic reasoning. The dominant conception is implicit, and he relates it to the work of past philosophers such as Derek Pariff, Judith Jarvis Thomson as well as Richard Brandt among others. Jamieson goes further in identifying the challenges of moral theories. He defines feminist sensibility as a problem that occurred among the philosophers in the late 1970s. The other challenge was the widespread skepticism related to the authority that occurred in 1960s.

The scholars who were affected by these problems differentiated and the majority emphasized on motivation rather than obligations2. They argued that their motivation was based on Hume and Aristotle rather than Kant. Jamieson demonstrates that these thinkers began to view morality as a kind of social practice rather than an expression of models. The first influential critiques of the dominant conception were from the article Modern Moral Philosophy by G.E.M Anscombe. Anscombe refutes the design law of ethics, which argues that his view is without the notion of a lawgiver.

He further noted that the argument considering moral obligation authoritative led to the introduction of religious ethics. Other philosophers who consent to Anscombe`s argument is Zygmund Bauman, who demonstrated the use of ethical theories by people in power3. He argues that this causes uncertainty and ambiguity. In his article, Anscombe criticizes the idea of issuing power to the moral wise by saying that it is not just for philosophers to make ethics their concern3. It is because none of them would entrust the decisions of whether right or wrong to other people without investigations.

He denotes that high ethics proves a way of undermining the moral responsibilities of people. Anscombe demonstrates that ethics is the only thing that tells the truth about situations in order to achieve well. He further identifies values as a code of law that identifies the correct behaviors at all times. It differentiates the good from evil, and this task fits philosophers who have a unique position in the community as compared to the ordinary people. Law governs their moral behaviors, and they have the ability to tell how well people observe the moral laws.

Further, Anscombe argues that these people are knowledgeable than the ordinary people. In conclusion, Anscombe suggests that if moral philosophy is to be considered secular, it should relate to Aristotle rather than Sidgwick3. In case it turns otherwise, it should be kept aside until there is an adequate philosophy of psychology. Philosophers Alasdair Macintyre and Bernard Williams, argues that moral theory has no authority. Further, Macintyre claims that there is no moral authority in liberal societies.

He urges on developing liberalism meaning simple narratives and ways of living. On the other hand, Williams applies that pluralism and liberalism to address the prospects for living an ethical life.

Read More