Sunday, January 19, 2014

Assignment Four – On Chapter Eleven “Higher Laws”

My younger brother was a late bloomer. No matter which development phase, it always took him considerably longer to complete it than other children. As time passed, he slowly caught up on his peers, and when he entered elementary school, he was just as developed as any other six-year old boy, except for one thing: He had not realized that he had to follow the same rules as everybody else. Whether it regarded household chores, homework or curfews, he was attentive that everything was done correctly and nobody got around their duties, yet he did not understand that those rules which he strictly enforced on others applied to him as well; it was simply beyond him. Naturally, this is just another stage of child development, but the fundamental way of thinking—that is, applying double standards—can also be observed in adults. The main difference is that most adults do not fail to understand the principles, but deliberately exclude themselves or certain aspects from them. Is it possible to justify those kinds of exemptions without forfeiting moral integrity?
In his famous book Walden, nineteenth century transcendentalist Henry David Thoreau endorses a vegetarian lifestyle and resolutely argues against carnivorousness, stating that hunting animals “is a miserable way.” (Thoreau 207). Subsequently, he explains his firm believe in a moral entity that inheres every human being, which he calls “genius.” (Thoreau 208). This genius, Thoreau goes on, manifests certain ideas in the individual's mind, and, though it might even lead to madness, constitutes a vision so strong that “the faintest assured objection which one healthy man feels will at length prevail over the arguments and customs of mankind.” (Thoreau 208). In other words, he reasons that what we, at the bottom of our hearts, deem ethically correct will eventually overcome every socially established frame. So according to Thoreau, there would be no need to apply double standards in the first place since the only morality we need to remain faithful to is within ourselves.
Another attempt at unveiling the mechanisms of human morality can be observed in Thomas Nagel's essay You Can't Learn About Morality from Brain Scans from 2013. The professor of philosophy and law breaks it down to one essential issue, namely “whether the values tied to the personal point of view, such as partiality toward oneself and one's family,(...)should be part of the foundation of morality, or should be admitted only to the extent that they can be justified from an impersonal standpoint.” (Nagel). In other words: Are personal standpoints such a profound part of the core of morality that applying double standards in certain cases can be viewed as morally upright, or does morality command to make everything consistent with objectivity? Though Nagel does not directly answer this question, he argues that letting go of personal bonds and behaviors in order to get rid of confinements and and envisage “the realization of the moral ideal, is to identify ideal morality as something more, or perhaps less, than human.” (Nagel). Nagel chooses a more complex approach toward the subject and hardly makes definite statements, yet he agrees with Thoreau insofar as both act on the assumption that there are two moral entities, one universal and one individual. Regarding the initial question, according to Nagel, exempting certain aspects from a moral code cannot be done without veering away from the so-called moral ideal.
Nagel calls what I have tried to discuss here “one of the hardest questions for moral theory”, and I could not agree more. Though there appears to be a broad agreement on the existence of the inner and outer moral entities, their individual importance remains somewhat ambiguous. I for one am not at all clear on my moral standards, and I honestly don't know anybody who is. But if Thoreau is correct, in the long run our inner geniuses will direct us onto the right path.

Works cited:
 
Nagel, Thomas. “You Can’t Learn About Morality from Brain Scans.” The New Republic 1 Nov. 2013. The New Republic. Web. 19 Jan. 2014.
 
Thoreau, Henry David, and Jeffrey S Cramer. Walden. New Haven, Conn.; London: Yale University Press, 2004. Print.


No comments:

Post a Comment