This makes you wonder why Peirce is not understood to be a moral philosopher as much as a partisan of the scientific method. I doubt that he would see the two things as distinct. Everything thus far in this discussion seems to point toward Peirce as the champion of a philosophy of progress based on moral principles which are effective agents within an individual capable of accessing and responding to the prompts of conscience. One cannot help requiring the seminal question of the lawyer who brought McCarthy down -- Have you no conscience, sir?
amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 7:50 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > A few comments on Lowell 1.5: > > > > The grounding of logic in phenomenology (i.e. close attention to “the > all-familiar phenomena of self-control”) is again emphasized by Peirce’s > assertion that those who “deluded themselves” with the fallacy he is > opposing did so because they “were so inattentive to the phenomena.” They > have also “confounded together the determination of the man's nature, which > is an efficient agency prepared previously to the act, with the comparison > of conduct with a standard, which comparison is a general mental formula > subsequent to the act, and, having identified these two utterly different > things, placed them in the act itself as a mere quality of feeling.” The > result was to lose the distinction between right and wrong in morals, or > between good and bad reasoning — a distinction essential to the > action-reflection-resolution cycles with necessarily involve a “general > mental formula.” > > > > Likewise, he says, attention to the phenomena will show you “that a > person who draws a rational conclusion, not only thinks it to be true, but > thinks that similar reasoning would be just in every analogous case” — and > this, for Peirce, is *definitive of reasoning*: “If he fails to think > this, the inference is not to be called reasoning.” Some “general mental > formula” or “rule” must implicitly guide the process. On the other hand, > Peirce also broadens the concept of “reasoning” beyond what he calls > “necessary reasoning”: “There are still other operations of the mind to > which the name ‘reasoning’ is especially appropriate, although it is not > the prevailing habit of speech to call them so.” These are of course > *induction* and *abduction*, to use the terms Peirce will introduce > later. Thus we have three kinds of reasoning which are “parallel” to the > “three kinds of considerations” which “go to support ideals of conduct” — > naturally enough, if we recognize reasoning as a species of self-control. > > > > Gary f. > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* 1-Oct-17 07:58 > *To:* 'Peirce List' <[email protected]> > *Subject:* [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 1.5 > > > > Continuing from 1.4 (EP2:248, CP 1.602): > > > > 603. Now let us compare the facts I have stated with the argument I am > opposing. That argument rests on two main premisses; first, that it is > unthinkable that a man should act from any other motive than pleasure, if > his act be deliberate; and second, that action with reference to pleasure > leaves no room for any distinction of right and wrong. > > > > 604. Let us consider whether this second premiss is really true. What > would be requisite in order to destroy the difference between innocent and > guilty conduct? The one thing that would do it would be to destroy the > faculty of effective self-criticism. As long as that remained, as long as a > man compared his conduct with a preconceived standard and that effectively, > it need not make much difference if his only *real* motive were pleasure; > for it would become disagreeable to him to incur the sting of conscience. > But those who deluded themselves with that fallacy were so inattentive to > the phenomena that they confused the judgment, after the act, that that act > satisfied or did not satisfy the requirements of a standard, with a > pleasure or pain accompanying the act itself. > > > > 605. Let us now consider whether the other premiss is true, that it is > unthinkable that a man should act deliberately except for the sake of > pleasure. What is the element which it is in truth unthinkable that > deliberate action should lack? It is simply and solely the determination. > Let his determination remain, as it is certainly conceivable that it should > remain, although the very nerve of pleasure were cut so that the man were > perfectly insensible to pleasure and pain, and he will certainly pursue the > line of conduct upon which he is intent. The only effect would be to render > the man's intentions more inflexible,— an effect, by the way, which we > often have occasion to observe in men whose feelings are almost deadened by > age or by some derangement of the brain. But those who have reasoned in > this fallacious way have confounded together the determination of the man's > nature, which is an efficient agency prepared previously to the act, with > the comparison of conduct with a standard, which comparison is a general > mental formula subsequent to the act, and, having identified these two > utterly different things, placed them in the act itself as a mere quality > of feeling. > > > > 606. Now if we recur to the defendant argument about reasoning, we shall > find that it involves the same sort of tangle of ideas. The phenomena of > reasoning are, in their general features, parallel to those of moral > conduct. For reasoning is essentially thought that is under self-control, > just as moral conduct is conduct under self-control. Indeed reasoning *is* > a species of controlled conduct and as such necessarily partakes of the > essential features of controlled conduct. If you attend to the phenomena of > reasoning, although they are not quite so familiar to you as those of > morals because there are no clergymen whose business it is to keep them > before your minds, you will nevertheless remark, without difficulty, that a > person who draws a rational conclusion, not only thinks it to be true, but > thinks that similar reasoning would be just in every analogous case. If he > fails to think this, the inference is not to be called reasoning. It is > merely an idea suggested to his mind and which he cannot resist thinking is > true. But not having been subjected to any check or control, it is not > deliberately approved and is not to be called reasoning. To call it so > would be to ignore a distinction which it ill becomes a rational being to > overlook. To be sure, every inference forces itself upon us irresistibly. > That is to say, it is irresistible at the instant it first suggests itself. > Nevertheless, we all have in our minds certain *norms,* or general > patterns of right reasoning, and we can compare the inference with one of > those and ask ourselves whether it satisfies that rule. I call it a rule, > although the formulation may be somewhat vague; because it has the > essential character of a rule of being a general formula applicable to > particular cases. If we judge our norm of right reason to be satisfied, we > get a feeling of approval, and the inference now not only appears as > irresistible as it did before, but it will prove far more unshakable by any > doubt. > > > > 607. You see at once that we have here all the main elements of moral > conduct; the general standard mentally conceived beforehand, the efficient > agency in the inward nature, the act, the subsequent comparison of the act > with the standard. Examining the phenomena more closely we shall find that > not a single element of moral conduct is unrepresented in reasoning. At the > same time, the special case naturally has its peculiarities. > > > > 608. Thus, we have a general ideal of sound logic. But we should not > naturally describe it as our idea of the kind of reasoning that befits men > in our situation. How should we describe it? How,— if we were to say that > sound reasoning is such reasoning that in every conceivable state of the > universe in which the facts stated in the premisses are true, the fact > stated in the conclusion will thereby and therein be true? The objection to > this statement is that it only covers necessary reasoning, including > reasoning about chances. There is other reasoning which is defensible as > probable, in the sense that while the conclusion may be more or less > erroneous, yet the same procedure diligently persisted in must, in every > conceivable universe in which it leads to any result at all, lead to a > result indefinitely approximating to the truth. When that is the case, we > shall do right to pursue that method, provided we recognize its true > character, since our relation to the universe does not permit us to have > any necessary knowledge of positive facts. You will observe that in such a > case our ideal is shaped by the consideration of our situation relatively > to the universe of existences. There are still other operations of the mind > to which the name “reasoning” is especially appropriate, although it is not > the prevailing habit of speech to call them so. They are conjectures, but > rational conjectures; and the justification of them is that unless a man > had a tendency to guess right, unless his guesses are better than tossing > up a copper, no truth that he does not already virtually possess could ever > be disclosed to him, so that he might as well give up all attempt to > reason; while if he has any decided tendency to guess right, as he *may* > have, then no matter how often he guesses wrong, he will get at the truth > at last. These considerations certainly do take into account the man's > inward nature as well as his outward relations; so that the ideals of good > logic are truly of the same general nature as ideals of fine conduct. We > saw that three kinds of considerations go to support ideals of conduct. > They were, first, that certain conduct seems fine in itself. Just so, > certain conjectures seem likely and easy in themselves. Secondly, we wish > our conduct to be consistent. Just so the ideal [of] necessary reasoning is > consistency simply. Third, we consider what the general effect would be of > thoroughly carrying out our ideals. Just so certain ways of reasoning > recommend themselves because if persistently carried out they must lead to > the truth. The parallelism, you perceive, is almost exact. > > > > http://gnusystems.ca/Lowells.htm }{ Peirce’s Lowell Lectures of 1903 > > > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
