I wonder if Joel Marks, author of this article at the NYT website, and of a book of the name above, would approve of just any ol' body who might happen to come to power cobbling up his own set of ethics, maybe even writing a book about it (Mein Kampf, anyone?). He trusts himself and his own intelligence, of course. But coming up with ethics without morals--leave that to the experts, and don't try this at home. I think one can only think this way within the hothouse atmosphere of the academy or in the abstract reasonings of one's own mind. We are capable of deceiving ourselves, even at the very same time that we trust ourselves above all others.
For while my desires are the same, my manner of trying to implement them has altered radically. I now acknowledge that I cannot count on either God or morality to back up my personal preferences or clinch the case in any argument. I am simply no longer in the business of trying to derive an ought from an is. I must accept that other people sometimes have opposed preferences, even when we are agreed on all the relevant facts and are reasoning correctly.
My outlook has therefore become more practical: I desire to influence the world in such a way that my desires have a greater likelihood of being realized. This implies being an active citizen. But there is still plenty of room for the sorts of activities and engagements that characterize the life of a philosophical ethicist. For one thing, I retain my strong preference for honest dialectical dealings in a context of mutual respect. It’s just that I am no longer giving premises in moral arguments; rather, I am offering considerations to help us figure out what to do. I am not attempting to justify anything; I am trying to motivate informed and reflective choices.
Yes, I'd guess he'd "approve" in a certain sense. The logical implication here is that he could not assert that Hitler was wrong, only that he disliked Hitler's values. He could only say "well, you happen desire that a racist dictatorship should rule the world and exterminate Jews and other minorities, I happen to desire that that not happen, so I guess I will have to fight you." This amount to reducing morality to a matter of taste.
More fundamentally, he has recognized that Kant's moral proof of the existence of God is valid (if objective morality is real then there is a God), and, disliking the conclusion, has rejected the premise instead. That way nihilism lies, as he will realize eventually.
Posted by: Matthias | August 23, 2011 at 07:00 PM
The problem with not deriving your oughts from an is is that the only alternative is deriving them from an isn't. Which means you're either simply making them up, or even worse, basing them on lies. As Mattias points out, if you reject the ultimate Is, you're left with the ultimate isn't.
Posted by: DL | August 23, 2011 at 07:21 PM
He claims that he became more persuasive as a result. But how could he persuade anybody?. What does persuade mean anyway for him?
For to persuade somebody is to engage in arguments that would be ultimately based upon right and wrong.
"I am offering considerations to help us figure out what to do."
I can not figure out what this would mean in absence of the concept of right and wrong.
Posted by: Gian | August 23, 2011 at 11:02 PM