One stream I am following suggests that all moral philosophy since the enlightenment is flawed because it has moved away from Aristotle's basic structure of human nature as it is, human nature as it could be if it realized its telos, and precepts of rational ethics as the means of moving from the former to the latter. The important distinction is the modern denial of telos, the idea of man having an essence that defines an end goal, rather than a continuum of development (or stagnation). While it is generally agreed that human nature is continually developing, it is rarely placed within a context of "end goal." As a result, ethics is seen as a description of how we ought to live, but is no longer seen as a functional concept.
Modern moral philosophy conceives of human nature as it is, and seeks to discern rationally who we ought to live, but denies a end goal defined by the essence of what it means to be human. Hume argued for judgment according to passions, Kant according to reason, but neither was able to move outside of their particular culture.
This is all still pretty muddled, and I'm sure my comments are filled with holes.
Best Snagfilms Alternatives At This Time
-
Snagfilms is a hugely utilized diversion administration for the clients who
are searching for a video on request stage for partaking in the consistent
vide...
5 weeks ago
9 comments:
In an era of relativism and anti-idealism, I think it's going to be difficult to argue in favor of an aristotelian moral philosophy.
Teleology is kind of passe, isn't it? Especially in the face of modern science? Wouldn't it be a little misguided to form a moral philosophy based on an ideal that isn't agreed on absolutely, or at least infallibly reasoned (which I think is impossible)?
I don't think an ethical system based on something outside teleology is necessarily non-functional. Unless we're talking about ethics within a shared belief structure. Maybe I'm justifying my own "ethics" here...
I somewhat agree with Jay (only because I'm not up to speed with teleology; got's me some research to do). I totally agree with making $3,000 or more per week. I admire your coolness in letting anonymous post to your blog Justin.
Yeah, there is a problem in attempting to return to a teleology. I haven't finished reading the book (After Virtue) so I don't know how he suggests going about it. I'm not even sure he does. At this point I think he is just explaining why he thinks the modern attempt at moral philosophy failed.
He is a guy named Alasdair MacIntyre.
Be forewarned, I'm not looking for or trying to point out "holes" in your post. I'm just trying to understand it.
"...telos, the idea of man having an essence that defines an end goal, rather than a continuum of development (or stagnation). While it is generally agreed that human nature is continually developing, it is rarely placed within a context of 'end goal.'"
Ok, that first section bracketed by commas, what do you mean by "essence" and "end goal"?
And, the second section, what/which "end goal" gives context to developing human nature?
It's not the philosophy that's confusing me. I can't understand the terminology to define the philosophy. Someone help me out here.
Justin,
The person who fell was the student intern here. You really wouldn't know them.
Adam-
The OED defines teleology as: The doctrine or study of ends or final causes, esp. as related to the evidences of design or purpose in nature; also transf. such design as exhibited in natural objects or phenomena.
I don't really understand all of the implications of teleology. I am just starting to encounter in the stuff I'm reading.
MacIntyre talks about a watch having a particular nature or essence that suggests what it ought to do. We define a watch according to its purpose or function. Hence a watch is good when it fullfills the expectations of a watch. In the same way, in the Aristotelian tradition, man is understood as having an essential nature and essential purpose or function. Man:good man as watch:good watch.
I'm sure this doesn't clear things up. Maybe essence can be explained by examining the opposite. Without telos, there is no purpose or function of human existence. If there is no end goal or function, then it seems implausible to suggest that there is any correct way of living. If there is nothing inherent in the nature of man that defines the correct function of life, then there is nothing to compare individual manifestations with.
That sounds very similar to arguments made for Intelligent Design.
If, as anthropologists might say, we are not currently evolving (since evolution tends to happen in relatively quick bursts as a result of circumstances that threaten the survival of a species), do you think our minds as well as our morals and ethics are somehow still evolving (developing) in way that could be considered evolution....and if so, are we setting ourselves up for extintion, or survival and thus further evolution? Should we judge this evolution? Does this analogy work? Does this comment make any sense at all? No. but thats the point. My goal is irrational thought, because evolution has left me behind and for that, Kant would kick my ass so hard that my ethical development would stop in its tracks.
Post a Comment