Jim Pait, list,
Jim's comments on ethics and aesthetics brought to mind some things I
have thought about but not thought through which include:
1. Is anything like Rousseau's pre-social human existence possible,
which, for reasons, among others, like Lester Frank Ward sets out in his
objection to Laissez Faire theories of social movement, I doubt.
RESPONSE: I, also, doubt the possibility of
pre-social human existence. But I fear that such an argument
would be difficult to distinguish between an argument over what
one presupposes to be the nature of social verses what one
presupposes to be the nature of humanity. In other words can the nature
of what it is to be human be separated from the nature of what it is to be
social. I think social is part of what it is to be human (and probably
other species as well). The constructs would have to be
conceptually independent to properly ask whether one could exist without the
other. Then supposing they were independent conceptually one could ask if
human existence were dependent upon the existence of the social. I
haven't said this well. What I'm trying to say is that we need to
distinguish between the question of whether being social is part of being
human human and the question of whether existing as a human depends
upon the support of society. Still not quite right but the best I can do
just now. END
2. Is it possible for individual members of social groups to
act as if we have no freedom of choice--that human conduct includes
no nonmechanical consequences of selecting one among two or more
available options?
RESPONSE: I like the way you have inverted
the way the question is typically posed, Charles. You rascal.
END
3. If it is impossible for individual members of social groups to
act as if we have no freedom of choice, is it possible for us to act as if no
choices lie on a continuum between worst and best? Is it possible for
members of social groups to avoid acting as if we must make ethical
decisions about what is and doing what is right or best?
RESONSE: I'd say the answer to #3
above is: No it is not possible to act in good faith and at the same
time avoid considering the ethical consequences of anything we
do. I believe that all our actions have ethical consequences.
I think in general your questions above
encompass two big issues that almost always arise
in discussions of ethics: (1) Can there be ethical choices
without so-called free will. (2) How ought concerns for the
individual be balanced against concerns for the society -- given that the
survival of each is interdependent. Despite the enormous
value all societies (not just some societies) place on
individual life and liberty, no society (not just some
societies) allows its individual members to have totally free
reign nor places more value on the life of an individual than
upon the life of the society. But it is interesting to see the
degree in which some individual's lives are more highly valued than other
individuals -- again, probably in all societies. I'm talking
about comprehensive societies (such as tribes or nations) that address
the overall needs of their members -- not such limited social
groups or institutions that address only one aspect of life.
Just Wondering,
RESPONSE: Me too, and thanks for the doing so.
Jim Piat
---