Without having a defined, agreed upon by all, system of Normative reasoning (what we ought to do, morally), we cannot compare the "gap" between the Normative and the Positive reasoning (what is actually done). Therefore, the gap is infinite thus unbridgeable, or completely non-existant; unless you believe when something is conceived in thought, it does in fact exist: just not necessarily in our universe, or univerise of understanding. In which case, there IS a gap, and a Normative reasoning we all can agree upon! The gap is thus trancedent and we mere mortals lack the ability to cross the plane. So why try?

Heh, I spelt plain: "plane". I certainly won't be crossing that barrier.

I think that's the point behind Normative reasoning - to determine what one ought to do, under any given circumstances. The process of moral philosophy acts under the presupposition that there is an answer to the moral dilemma. Given that there is, in fact, something or one action which ought to be performed under a certain set of circumstances, and a person has knowledge of said action, but chooses to act otherwise, how do we account for this discrepancy? If there are moral laws, or sufficient moral reasoning, and people do not obey them, what does that say about moral philosophy in general? About people?

I don't think that there can be a single moral system to guide all people; I believe that people are foolish for trying to find one. I have my own moral philosophy, and I'm not particularly concerned with those of other people, except where I find one's philosophy (or lack thereof) distasteful, or commendable.

It is my belief that I should do exactly as I please, regardless of the rule of law, regardless of the wishes, demands or guidelines of others, with only one constraint: leave the smallest footprint possible. I do not ever have the right to infringe upon the lives of others, in ways small or large, save for where their behaviour is unacceptable to me because it causes unnecessary suffering. In such cases I have ultimate license to help the innocent parties, and to damage the guilty if necessary.

One could say that I am, by philosophy alone, a Satanist, but with one major exception: the philosophy behind Satanism dictates that the weak should be ignored, exploited, or crushed outright, to the ultimate benefit of the strong. I believe that this outlook is itself pathetically weak - the stuff of feeble nerds playing dressup in black robes, and unnecessary and offensive to truly solid human beings. I need not to exploit feeble peasants in order to survive; I will do so, when my full potential is realized, while helping them to live well also.

I find suffering offensive. I find those who are apathetic to it more offensive, and those who attempt to rationalize it more still. I will act accordingly.

So, yeah! Those are the rules that govern my life. I don't particularly care if they govern anyone else's, but that doesn't mean that I won't stop people from living according to their own morality (or lack of it) if it conflicts with mine! It may be alright, for example, for a psychopath to molest children, or a desperate man to steal from other desperate people; it is not alright for me to sit by and do nothing while congratulating myself on my open-mindedness. My responsibility is to slaughter, or at least disable, the scum who presume to take their living from others, and to see to it that by the time I die, I have given back everything it has cost the world to let me become established in life.

An interesting response, Quigley. I admire both your disdain for moral philosophy (which I love) and your firm convictions concerning your own "philosophy." (Scare quotes, as this is the more colloquial of the meanings used herein.) I would like to address the crux of your philosophy: "... leave the smallest footprint possible."

Brilliant! At our final class meeting, my Ethics professor divided the class into groups and asked us each to grapple with the fundamental questions of moral philosophy (which I pose in the original article text). (I know - yay, groupwork! We're college-student boneheads who can sit in a circle and feel awkward about our glaring insensitivity and ignorance to the subject matter. Ah, well.) When he asked members of each group to report on what they had come up with, I offered the following answer to the question, "What sort of person ought one to be?" [In rough paraphrase]: "One ought to be the sort of person who is aware of the Moral Dilemma. The Moral Dilemma is simply the problem we are each confronted with when we consider the varying consequences of our actions. One ought to be aware of this Dilemma, but also sensitive to its nature. For once a person has found some "ultimate truth" on which they base their actions, they will defend this truth as an animal backed into a corner. It can get messy. At the very base level, a person simply ought to be aware that we each come to our own conclusions, regardless of outside dogmatic influence or intellectual posturing, and that it is the individual nature of these conclusions which ought to be respected above all others." Excepting, of course, the circumstances which you so wisely took note of above, Q.

Therefore, I believe that there is a point of intersection between our personal "philosophies." This intersection is the terse wording that you forwarded in your response: leave the smallest footprint possible. And how large a footprint, indeed, it is when a man (or woman) comes along and sets down an ethical treatise proclaiming to all women (and men) everywhere that the author has discovered the rules upon which one ought to base their actions.

On another note, who is familiar with the liberal background of the sentiments expressed in these statements? Is it simply a reaction to the Catholic Church or some other such rigorous institution? Surely, after a few hundred years, individuals would have outgrown this!

i choose "business ethics".

i choose a big fucking tv.

This Just In!

Relativism: Our unwillingness to accept, or debate, ethical systems is the phenomenon of relativism." It occurs only in periods of history where people are unable to resolve conflicts. Conflict resolution is something that happens after two, or more, competing theories or ideas have been compared and one, more, or all have been rejected using logic and the best available evidence. "Absolutism" refers to what is essentially the opposite of relativism. Absolutism occurs in fields of thought where it is rather easy to resolve conflicts. The best example of this is probably science; in this particular field, we have a commonly practiced method for resolving disputation. Relativism is an impotence to convey thought, or meaning, whether on the part of the speaker, or of the interpreter because of some inherent barrier. My philosophy professor claims that this barrier began once American universities dropped logic from their curriculum. Thus, today, people lack the tools necessary to make convincing argumentation concerning topics as thorny as moral philosophy.

Observation: No, Quigley is not impotent - I think the man does a fine job conveying thought and meaning. At least, I think I understand what he is saying. And, although we all pride ourselves in illogical responses to various things posted throughout the site, I think that most people here have a decent logical framework! (For examples of illogical responses, see below references to business and television. WTF!?) So, I'm just going to use Q as a counter-example of this particular definition of a "relativist." It just seems to me that my professor wants to level a certain accusation at his students, and those who agree with his students. "Look, the reason you want to say that it is okay for other people to be right about how they lead their lives and for you to be right about how you lead yours, is because you are stupid.” Which may be true! But I tend to think that it’s false. If, however, I don’t hear any good objections by you PoCers, I’ll become a convert to moral philosophy. Good arguments persuade me; he’s making his, now let’s hear yours!

For the Record: I don't think that my professor was being ethnocentric when he pointed to American (read: U.S.) curriculum blunders. I think that he was just trying to teach us something about our culture. I'm sure that he'd come up with some interesting observations about other cultures, as well, given the opportunity.

Disagreement & Tolerance: Another interesting point was raised, however. I mentioned that we (people that I know, at least) are usually taught as children that it is "bad" to try to tell another person that their way of life sucks, or is wrong. (What do I mean by this? Well, it's inhibiting them from living a certain kind of life - a life that would consist in performing rational activities well. I can elaborate, but Aristotle did that, and I don't think that you really need me to explain what the phrase "performing rational activities well" means - at least, not here. I had to throw that in there at least once; I always get in trouble for using words like "good," "bad," "moral," "immoral," etc. without explaining what they mean.) It seems that people often confuse "tolerance" with "being nice." That is, people often argue that it is "intolerant" (they mean "not nice") to reject the ethical systems of other people. However, just because you reject their systems doesn't mean that you are necessarily intolerant. It just means that you reject that person's ethical systems! But you can still go out and have a drink! You can disagree, and tolerate! PERM! I take it that none of us would sanction the ethical system that resides in the brain of Ted Bundy. (We have places for those among you who do - with concrete, steel, razor wire and an hour of "exercise.") Likewise, I take it that people can live without committing any egregious offenses against the common welfare, but that there are components of their life with which we might disagree. For instance, we might try to dissuade an alcoholic or junkie from consumption on the basis that we think his or her quality of life would improve. And, we wouldn't be too far off, either.

One Last Thing: My professor ridiculed my answers as "the most naive bullshit you've ever heard" and then told me that I was stupid. Yay philosophy! He didn't address me directly, but he was making a general statement about people who offered a certain type of answer to the questions of moral philosophy. I believe that I made such a comment, and that his remark was thrown in my general direction. He's a pretty harsh guy, but I think that he has a lot to offer.

PLEASE, please, please respond! I could go and read other crap, like objections to moral philosophy by moral philosophers, but I'd rather read this pile of crap sitting right here! :-)

Akie, thanks for clearing up Relativism and Absolutism, and for making me check the dictionary to figure out what "egegregious" means (you wordy and intelligent bastard).

On the subject of "good" and "bad", I'd like to discuss what things we ought to tell our kids are bad, but we'll need to give a concrete definition to "bad" and also "good", first; at least for this argument.

Profs that are harsh on you but offer so much knowledge are my favourite! I think I may have already viewed the meaning of the word "tolerate" pretty much as you describe it as how it ought to come across: minus the whole "nice" stuff where you can still go out and have a drink even though you disagree.

With respect to Moral Philosophy, how can there be any other when ALL our social actions are based on morals? That's where I stand, currently, subject to change without notice, all offers are void in Utah. A book I have, Philosophy in the Flesh, is quite a good read and I have barely begun it in several places because it is so dense with, well, philosophy. Ever heard of it? It argues that philosophy is inextricable from our body and perception of our body through our senses. They do go into moral philosophy somewhere, dammit, now i have to go look that up...

In response to the question, "what if people didn't respond to this system by adopting it?", I'll point to the nature of things: what is most useful is used. Evolution has showed us that. If some feature does not provide a benefit over 50 or 500 generations, then there is no reason for it to appear after 500 generations. However, in reverse there is also no reason it ought not to if it has no negeative effect. I should say, no negative effect on reproduction. And now that humans are far beyond worrying about reproduction it is more than likely attributes of our society (which have evolved for the same base reasons we have opposible thumbs) that do not effect our reproduction rate have come into play to stay. With this in mind, having system of moral values that are "correct" just may be indefencable when subject to the knife-wielding manic I often refer to. Or, the knife-wielding manic just doesn't care about the system itself to take notice of it. Systems only work when someone uses them. The system may have been devised but the benefits may now have outweighed the benefits of other systems. Or at least have been attractive enough to employ. Nazi Germany sure attracted a lot of followers. Attraction to a system has to be because the results are desired because in a utilitarian method we see them as having more value. I think that if a morally correct system was concieved, those around at the time who knew of it preferred their current system and ignored it because it did not yield the results they were interested in or because of the cost involved in upholding the system. Balls.