Saturday, March 15, 2008
Is a grounding in ethical theory important for global ethics?
I think it is intuitive that a grounding in general ethical theory is helpful for purproses of bringing the most informed perspectives to the Gobal Ethics table. For instance, it seems wise that students should be able to master the basic concepts and distinctions of ethics, such as the descriptive/prescriptive/metaethical distinction, the difference between rights, goods, and values, and the differences in general theoretical approaches, such as utilitarian, Kantian, or virtue ethics, to name but a few, in order for them to be optimally conversant in the global discourses on matters of conflicts between these various and other related conceptions. However, it is also possible that what I will call "virgin intuitions" - intuitions not shaped by centuries of ethical discourse - might bring to the table novel considerations that are best dealt with on their own terms. By analogy, it is said that traditional or classical training in art or music might hinder creativity. And we need to encourage novel perspectives when it comes to tackling global issues. Perhaps the whole tradition of prior ethical discourse is best viewed tentatively. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Suggestion: Think of the way the first reading in the class, Ishmael, was encountered prior to any significant discussion of ethical theory. Compare how your thinking has been altered by all the ethical theory readings in Unit II. Well, what do you think?
I don't place an inordinate amount of value upon what you refer to as virgin intuition, which is why (for example) I tended to be rather quiet during the discussion of Ishmael, since my knowledge of Leaver cultures was rather insignificant (and therefore any philosophizing on my end was bound to be either incorrect in its approach or altogether lacking in substance).
In the context of global ethics, of what value are personal beliefs about moral issues if they aren't grounded in some knowledge of its philosophical components? Considering the fact that there is a strong cultural influence embedded within our perspectives on ethical issues and morality, it seems that a person who lacks a philosophical understanding of ethics does not have virgin intuition as such, but is instead more likely to simply process his ideas within the framework that his culture has instilled in him. (And part of the goal of a course like this is to be able to think outside of our cultural framework.) I would be doubtful of whether such a person could truly bring novel solutions to the table.
It's true that being overly analytical can stifle creativity; but of key importance is the ability to leave one's knowledge bank and analytical habits behind if that's what it takes to develop creative solutions, and then be capable of returning to your knowledge and analysis after those solutions have been developed so that you can assess more thoroughly the validity of those solutions. In contrast, someone with virgin intuition is incapable of truly assessing/analyzing the validity of proposals that he or she might come up with.
Jordan, you crack me up. Of all the issues we've ever discussed, all the controversies that have sparked conversation, the only thing I have ever heard you concretely advocate for is analysis. Personally, I think this is a positive attribute because it is a testament to your thorough criteria for just judgment.
Sometimes I feel, however, that the more we learn the less we know. This is particularly true of terminologies; after all, if we get caught up in constantly defining "isms," then the end product is merely a greater understanding of labels. My understanding of this class is that while we should understand terms with authority, we should use those terms with a prescriptive objective.
Please don't let me misrepresent myself here. Analysis is essential. At a certain point, however, we must find a position--there is no room for indecision in prescription (in my novice opinion). As far as "virgin intuition" goes, I think it would be a tremendous disservice to devalue it. I think your argument is that the more educated we are, the less we are influenced by the sometimes ignorant views of our backgrounds. However, I might argue that the more learned we are, the more we are influenced by even increasingly filtered viewpoints.
As a future educator, there is little I value more than my own education and the treasure that is knowledge. Every once in a while, though, I need to remove myself from the books/scholars and just listen to people.
Some of the *wisest* people I've known in my life have relied purely on virgin intuition and life experience. In fact, I think this is generally true of most Leaver cultures, and they seem to have it all figured out.
I mean, just look at our education system. Every week there seems to be some trendy pedagogical theory being implemented en masse by various public school systems. These theories have taken tremendous amounts of resources to develop, yet the schools remain broken. Meanwhile, "developing" nations are producing statistically better educated students. Let me just say that sometimes intellectual principles, things that "should" work, don't account for common sense.
Perhaps I am just disillusioned with the rigors of studying for short-term retention. Regardless, I say bring on the virgin intuition, even if that means unveiling ourselves as naive and ignorant. After all, who are the most naive and ignorant people in our society at any given time? Children, right? And yet, kids seem to see beyond race, economics, and politics (under adults start whispering bias in their ears). They are also consistently the most novel and innovative, likely because precedent has not adulterated their optimism.
Jordan and Joy: I'm very excited to see this level of discussion. This is exactly what the blog is for, and a big parft of what the course if for, other goals notwithstanding.
While I can see the many merits of both sides, thanks to you both, I do not wish to presume that I can just step in and solve this debate, even if my view is both broader and more keen, based on my years of experience in these waters. But let me share some thoughts, pro and con, to (re-)enter the fray.
The view from the street, the so-called pedestrian or "folk" view, is not as untutored as it may seem. Ordinary knowledge and belief is tricky, as Prof. Jon Adler of Brooklyn College reasons (book title something like Belief's Own Ethics). Countless folk or daily beliefs about reality are transmitted tacitly and otherwise, each endorsed by not being disconfirmed by ubiquitous experience. Grammar, I might add, is the accumulated wisdom of the logic of a community of such knowers over centuries: what 'sounds right' is itself deeply connected with that web of tacitly non-disconfirmed beliefs. All too often isolated analysts build houses of (semantic) cards that sound right to fellow distinction-mongers, but are so disconnected from experience as to have no foundations, though they appear to be conceptually fashionable if not philosophically cogent (but mere lingo du jour).
Knowledge privileges semantic distinctions and the high-level conceptual analyses that accompany them, but wisdom trades in simplicities, and when it comes to morals, wisdom may be more salient and pertinent than knowledge. On the other hand, due to the proximity of morals and religious beliefs, and the propensity of both to be inextricably entangled in dogma, one must invite knowledge into the discussion.
One of my main reasons for trying to tap into the pre-refelctive moral compass is to have a baseline for comparison and self-reflection, to allow students to see where they are and compare this with where they wind up at semester's end. Also, it is essential for growth that you start where you are, and reflect on that, and build on it, and when it comes to values, we each must honor our native ones, even if we transcend them, our values of origin, so to speak.
I have also found that many of my unsophisticated beliefs were more cogent than the super-cool ultracontemporary dogmas du jour, however well-dressed and popular among professional philosophers and other academics the latter may be.
At the risk of sounding disingenuous, I really appreciate your last comment, Prof. Repetti. Many issues you addressed were pressing on my mind.
cool photo attachment. how did you do that?
I think that before we can talk about the usefulness of virgin intuition in the context of global ethics, we must first address virgin intuition independent of anything else, so that’s what I’ll focus on here.
Professor Repetti wrote: "Knowledge privileges semantic distinctions and the high-level conceptual analyses that accompany them, but wisdom trades in simplicities, and when it comes to morals, wisdom may be more salient and pertinent than knowledge."
I don't think I disagree with you here, but it's not clear to me how you're defining wisdom. While I would never claim that wisdom automatically accompanies knowledge--it clearly doesn't, as evidenced by unethical people who are highly knowledgeable--certainly wisdom itself is dependent upon knowledge, though of a certain type, perhaps. Joy, for example, says that >experiential knowledge< appears to be the determining factor in the attainment of wisdom [she wrote: "Some of the *wisest* people I've known in my life have relied purely on virgin intuition and life experience"].
I have no problem with your emphasis on experiential knowledge, Joy, since in my view it is very clearly one of the bases upon which wisdom is built. But the manner in which you emphasize virgin intuition over against the analytical mind makes it sound as though wisdom can actually be divorced from analytical thinking, which in my opinion is impossible; wisdom (in my view) is nothing if it is not analytical. How can a person be wise if they are incapable—or unwilling, as the case may be—of looking at situations from a variety of contrasting perspectives so as to size up the rationality of each perspective and adjudicate accordingly? (That’s an analytical process.) Anyone can rely on “gut instinct/virgin intuition” to make judgments—and indeed, most do, since it is so convenient at any given moment. But few actually base their judgments on rational analysis, because rational analysis requires having knowledge—the pursuit of which interests very few (comparatively speaking).
If you’re claiming that knowledge and analysis CAN result in clouded judgment that’s devoid of wisdom, that’s a fair statement—fair because being overly-analytical can cause one to lose touch with everyday reality, as Prof. Repetti stated above—and I made this same suggestion in a paper I wrote for Prof. Repetti awhile back. But to go further and argue that knowledge and analytical thinking actually fosters clouded judgment (based on your experience with most wise people being virgin intuition types) is to draw a spurious correlation I think. Surely reliance upon gut instinct/virgin intuition results in unsound judgment much more frequently, though unfortunately this stuff isn’t quantifiable, so nobody can prove anything in the matter.
Perhaps I’ve been overly analytical here ;) … But when people seemingly set up wisdom as though it’s in opposition to knowledge, it tends to trigger a reaction from me, because people do it frequently. Knowledge needn’t be pursued for its own sake. It can (and probably should) be pursued ultimately as a means for attaining wisdom.
p.s. My final paragraph was poorly worded ... The word I should've used was "tension" rather than "opposition," the latter being more forceful than I intended. (I was being pulled out of the computer lab while finishing up the above post ... so it was hastily written.)
Jordan,
Asyou know from our earlier discussions of non-Western philosophy, I think there are non-analytical forms of extraordinary attention to ordinary experience as well as gnostic, mystical, and other non-ordinary ways of knowing that are not discursive but that are legitimate sources of wisdom. A life of contemplation, prayer, purifications of the heart through wisdom teachings and mind-body disciplines, following the teachings of Jesus or Buddha or some other wise man or sage woman, etc., are all examples that - somewhat ironically (using analysis) contradict some of your central assertions. But this is not to say that analysis is demoted...
Post a Comment