An Examination of Ethics, Religion, and Their Relationship in the Work of Charles Taylor David Mcpherson Marquette University
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by epublications@Marquette Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette Dissertations (2009 -) Dissertations, Theses, and Professional Projects Re-Enchanting The orW ld: An Examination Of Ethics, Religion, And Their Relationship In The Work Of Charles Taylor David McPherson Marquette University Recommended Citation McPherson, David, "Re-Enchanting The orldW : An Examination Of Ethics, Religion, And Their Relationship In The orkW Of Charles Taylor" (2013). Dissertations (2009 -). Paper 280. http://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/280 RE-ENCHANTING THE WORLD: AN EXAMINATION OF ETHICS, RELIGION, AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP IN THE WORK OF CHARLES TAYLOR by David McPherson, B.A., M.A. A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School, Marquette University, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Milwaukee, Wisconsin August 2013 ABSTRACT RE-ENCHANTING THE WORLD: AN EXAMINATION OF ETHICS, RELIGION, AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP IN THE WORK OF CHARLES TAYLOR David McPherson, B.A., M.A. Marquette University, 2013 In this dissertation I examine the topics of ethics, religion, and their relationship in the work of Charles Taylor. I take Taylor’s attempt to confront modern disenchantment by seeking a kind of re-enchantment as my guiding thread. Seeking re-enchantment means, first of all, defending an ‘engaged realist’ account of strong evaluation, i.e., qualitative distinctions of value that are seen as normative for our desires. Secondly, it means overcoming self-enclosure and achieving self-transcendence, which I argue should be understood in terms of transcending a ‘lower’ mode of selfhood for a ‘higher’ one in concern for ‘strong goods’. One of the main issues that Taylor raises is whether re-enchantment requires theism for its full adequacy. He advances – often as ‘hunches’ – controversial claims regarding the significance of theism (1) for defending strong evaluative realism and (2) for motivating an ethic of universal human concern. I seek to fill out his hunches in terms of a theistic teleological perspective that is centered on the ‘telos of communion’. I argue that such a view is important for overcoming the problem of what Bernard Williams calls the ‘radical contingency’ of ethical beliefs, which seems to undermine their normative authority. However, I argue that if a non-theistic view of cosmic purpose (e.g., Thomas Nagel’s view) can be regarded as a viable option, then it could also help to address this problem and support a kind of re-enchantment. Taylor also advances the controversial view that (3) there is an ineradicable draw to ‘transcendence’ in human life in connection to the quest for the meaning of life. Here he opposes certain mainstream theories of secularization that see it as a process involving the ineluctable fading away of the relevance of religion. I seek to fill out and defend Taylor’s view in this matter. Besides providing a reading of Taylor’s work as a whole and advancing further some of the issues he raises, I also examine his general evaluative framework based on his account of strong evaluation. In doing so I show how he provides a distinct and important perspective among contemporary moral philosophers. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS David McPherson, B.A., M.A. I would like to thank, first of all, my committee members – Dr. Stanley Harrison, Dr. Ruth Abbey, Dr. Theresa Tobin, and Rev., Dr. Philip Rossi, S.J. – for all their generosity and support. I am especially grateful to my director, Dr. Harrison, and my second reader, Dr. Abbey, for reading a number of drafts and for their very helpful comments that enabled significant improvements to the dissertation. I owe a huge debt of gratitude to Dr. Harrison for being a great mentor, teacher, friend, and supporter throughout my time at Marquette. I also thank the Marquette Philosophy Department and Graduate School for all the support during my time as a graduate student. I would like to express my deep appreciation to the Arthur J. Schmitt Foundation and the Smith Family Foundation for their generosity in providing me with dissertation fellowships that enabled me to complete my dissertation in a timely manner, and, in the case of the Smith Family Fellowship, enabled me to travel to Finland, England, and Canada in order to work with Dr. Arto Laitinen and to interview Dr. John Cottingham and Dr. Charles Taylor. I thank Arto Laitinen for his generosity and hospitality in inviting me to work with him in Finland and for providing me with very helpful feedback on several drafts of dissertation chapters. I am also grateful to John Cottingham and Charles Taylor for kindly and generously taking the time to be interviewed. I thank Dr. James South for helping to make these interviews possible by having them published in Marquette University’s journal Philosophy & Theology. I would like to express appreciation to my good friends and long-time conversation partners Luke Scripter, Joel Erickson, and Nathan Suhr- ii Sytsma, who have each helped to shape my thinking over the years. I also thank my undergraduate teacher, Dr. Sara Shady, who was an important formative influence on my thinking and who first introduced me to the work of Charles Taylor. I would like to express my deep appreciation to my parents for all their love and support over the years and without whom I would not be who I am today. Finally, and most importantly, I want to say that no words can adequately express the depth of my appreciation to my wife Kirstin for all that she has been for me. It is the greatest blessing of my life to get to share the journey of life together with her, which now includes the incredible joy of parenthood with the birth of our daughter Clare at the end of November 2012. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………………..i REFERENCE KEY FOR ABBREVIATIONS OF CHARLES TAYLOR’S WORKS....vii CHAPTERS I. INTRODUCTION……………………………………...……………………….1 Re-Enchanting the World…………………………………………………8 Overview of the Chapters to Follow……………………………………..22 II. TAYLOR’S EVALUATIVE FRAMEWORK, PART I……………………...29 I. Strong Evaluation and Weak Evaluation………………………………30 Two Kinds of Second-Order Desires…………………………….30 Two Fundamental Types of Goods: Strong Goods and Weak Goods…………………………………………………………….34 Strong Evaluators vs. Simple Weighers………………………….43 The Charge of Intellectualism……………………………………48 The Place of Weak Evaluation in Human Life…………………..51 II. Life Goods and Constitutive Goods…………………………………..54 Taylor’s Two-Tiered Account of Strong Goods: Life Goods and Constitutive Goods………………………………………………54 Taylor’s Internalism and the Role of Articulation in the Ethical Life……………………………………………………………….64 The Plurality of Goods, the Problem of Conflict, and the Possibility of Reconciliation……………………………………..72 Strong Evaluation and Theism…………………………………...87 III. TAYLOR’S EVALUATIVE FRAMEWORK, PART II……………………97 I. The Self in Moral Space……………………………………………….98 iv The Inescapability of Strong Evaluation for Properly Functioning Human Agency: A ‘Transcendental Argument’…………………98 Stage One: Identity as Necessary for Properly Functioning Human Agency………………………………………………………….101 Stage Two: Strong Evaluation as Necessary for Identity………103 Evaluating Taylor’s Argument…………………………………107 II. Moral (Strong Evaluative) Realism………………………………….116 Strong Evaluation and Moral Ontology………………………...116 The Projectivist Challenge……………………………………...121 Taylor’s Middle Way Between Projectivism and Platonism…...125 Interlude on McDowell’s Quietist Re-Enchantment and Sophisticated Naturalism……………………………………….132 Taylor’s Moral Ontology: A Theistic Teleological Perspective..139 Confronting the Evolutionary Challenge……………………….156 IV. FULLNESS AND SELF-TRANSCENDENCE……………………………168 I. Taylor on Fullness……………………………………………………171 Fullness in Moral/Spiritual Space………………………………171 Two Modes of Fullness: Enduring States and Momentary Experiences……………………………………………………..175 Fullness vs. ‘Personal Fulfillment’ and ‘Flourishing’………….180 II. Fullness and Self-Transcendence……………………………………185 Sources of Fullness: Within vs. Without……………………….185 Self-Transcendence……………………………………………..191 Self-Transcendence #1: Actualizing Strongly Valued Capacities……………………………………………………….197 v Self-Transcendence #2: Love or Concern for Constitutive Goods External to One’s Own Person………………………………….199 V. TRANSCENDENCE………………………………………………………..208 I. Beyond Human Flourishing…………………………………………..210 The Axial Revolution and Its Aftermath…………...…………..210 Beyond Life…………………………………………………….220 Beyond Anthropocentrism……………………………………...224 Beyond ‘Ordinary’ Human Flourishing………………………...226 Going Beyond Human Flourishing: Is It Still Distinctive of Religious Views?.........................................................................231 II. Homo Religiosus: Is the Draw to (Vertical) Transcendence a Human Constant?..................................................................................................235 Homo Religiosus?........................................................................235 The Immanent Frame and Closed World Structures……………240 ‘Is That All There Is?’…………………………………………..248 Responding to Suffering and Evil………………………………253 ‘Homogeneous, Empty Time’…………………………………..258 The Desire for Eternity…………………………………………261 Making Sense of Strong Evaluative Experience………………..265 Exemplary Lives………………………………………………..272 Fusion Experiences……………………………………………..273 III. Responding to Objections…………………………………………..276 The Threat to Wholeness……………………………………….276