In Defense of Ethical Naturalism

University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 1998 In defense of Ethical Naturalism David Roberts The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Roberts, David, "In defense of Ethical Naturalism" (1998). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 5619. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/5619 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Maureen and Mike MANSFIELD LIBRARY The University fMONTANAo Permission is granted by the author to reproduce this material in its entirety, provided that this material is used for scholarly purposes and is properly cited in published works and reports. ** Please check "Yes" or "No" and provide signature ** Yes, I grant permission ^ No, I do not grant permission____ Author's Signature D ate ~ 7 /z o A l____________________ Any copying for commercial purposes or financial gain may be undertaken only with the author's explicit consent. IN DEFENSE OF ETHICAL NATURALISM by David Roberts B.A. Maryville College, 1994 presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts The University of Montana 1998 Approved by: Chairperson Dean, Graduate School Date UMI Number: EP41083 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI EP41083 Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Roberts, David H., M.A., July 1998 Philosophy In Defense of Ethical Naturalism (|<f3 pp.) Director: Andrew Light Ethical Naturalism (EN) is the position that moral reasoning, perception, and behavior are natural processes that make no use of transcendental features of reality or of human nature. EN holds that morality is a situated, embodied skill possessed by social animals of sufficient complexity, not a body of laws or facts gleaned from context-independent sources. In Chapter One, EN is defended against attacks directed at it by Virginia Held in her paper, "Whose Agenda?" It is argued that Held caricatures the sciences from which EN draws, exaggerates EN’s dependence on those sciences, improperly isolates moral theory from empirical disciplines, and draws too sharp a division between facts and values. The conclusion is that Held offers no compelling reason to fear or reject EN. In Chapter Two, an application of EN is described, that of Paul Churchland's moral network theory (MNT). Connectionist models of cognitive science are described, and their implications for the structure of concepts are explained. Churchland's application of connectionism to moral reasoning is explicated. The chapter concludes with a defense of EN and MNT against some philosophical objections. In Chapter Three, the implications of EN are discussed. First, EN implies that moral training ought to be moved back to the center of moral life, in contrast to Kantian and utilitarian theories that cast moral behavior purely as a product of the will. Moral training is a holistic affair that takes place in the total environment through exposure to various exemplars and feedback with regard to moral performance. It involves a significant degree of luck. Second, EN implies that moral theory can not do the normative work expected of it by modern moral philosophers. EN suggests that moral philosophy can make significant metaethical contributions, describing the conditions under which effective moral reasoning takes place, but that it holds no privileged place in the normative activities of evaluation and recommendation. Normative debate is distributed throughout society, and cannot be settled by philosophers through recourse to unique philosophical tools, methods, or facts. In the moral conversation of humanity, philosophy is but one voice in the chorus, not the conductor. Preface and Acknowledgments Contemporary academic philosophy is almost entirely isolated from the larger community that surrounds it. It is virtually invisible outside the academy, and consists primarily in professors writing to other professors. This came as somewhat of a shock to me. As an undergraduate, I turned to philosophy precisely because I was concerned with the pressing problems facing my culture: the paucity of political debate, the continuing degradation of the environment, the shrill and seemingly irresolvable clashes between cultures and subcultures. U.S. culture has become centered around material and technical progress, stumbling blindly into the future at a breakneck pace, and that the project of situating our lives in the framework of a larger, meaningful narrative has been all but abandoned as hopeless. But when I immersed myself in (analytic) philosophy, I found a discourse seemingly oblivious to broad cultural problems. Logical questions are scrupulously dissected, logical protocols scrupulously observed. The only acceptable philosophical form is "argument," construed as conclusions derived from uncontroversial premises. The shape of analytic philosophy was cemented by the logical positivists, who believed that "conceptual analysis" would lead to clarity about philosophical problems. Today, we have abandoned most of the positivist tenets that gave the belief substance, but no one seems to know where to go from here, so most philosophers continue to write in the pinched language of logical argumentation. As a result, the large, vague, and messy questions that grip us in our daily lives are invisible in analytic philosophy — its form dictates that only the most small, tidy, and clearly delimited problems be addressed. Analytic philosophy endlessly draws distinctions within distinctions until any subject becomes a landscape of such complexity that only "expert" philosophers can navigate it; each subfield has a cadre of philosophical technicians whose only job, seemingly, is to further complicate their shared intellectual domain. This makes dialogue with the larger culture virtually impossible. Little progress is made, for we are no longer sure in what progress consists, so arguments become their own warrant, carrying on without much hope of resolution or sense of what would follow if resolution were achieved. Perhaps worst of all, analytic philosophy is aesthetically unappealing. It is boring. I expected the same of ethics, and, in my limited exposure, found what I expected. The tradition of modern moral philosophy casts morality as an autonomous domain, different in kind from the workaday practical domain. Our course in the moral domain is to be charted by reference to formulaic principles, which apply (or fail to apply) regardless of particular or idiosyncratic circumstances. In any situation, a course can be "derived" from the proper rule. (Of course, in practice, the rules and principles offered by Kantian and utilitarian theories are hopelessly remote from our situated experience and can be fleshed out in a host of incompatible ways.) Morality is the province of the philosophical technician, whose task is to instruct non philosophers as to the correct rules and their scope. Philosophy is thus cast as the privileged judge and arbitrator of practices, intellectual, political, and cultural. Today, we find a situation parallel to that described above: we have abandoned the metaphysical tenets that gave rule-based morality its warrant, but mainstream philosophy carries on through sheer momentum, unable or unwilling to release its grip on its illusory privilege. On closer inspection, however, I find reason to hope in ethics. The resurgence of virtue theory has begun to turn the focus away from the Rational Agent and back to real people, with real traits and dispositions, acting in the context of real traditions. While virtue theory has its own problems, it is a step in the right direction. My own return to ethics is inspired by my exposure to two related movements gaining popularity in contemporary philosophy: pragmatism and naturalism. Pragmatism tells us that our reasoning should be focused on improving practice rather than divining ultimate Truths; naturalism tells us that we are biological creatures, that reason is a natural capacity developed in and conditioned by the long course of evolution. My purpose in writing this paper is to defend a pragmatic, naturalist vision of morality and moral philosophy. I hope to contribute to the project of returning ethics to its proper place, intertwined with other areas of inquiry and with experience as a whole. It is only through such a return that moral philosophy can regain relevance and a place in the contemporary cultural conversation. If I succeed, the reader will be gripped as I have been by the notion that ethics

Load more