Ethics

You can make an argument that a particular route to Yellowstone is the best one to take; and you can make an argument that a man should give up his lover and decide to remain with his wife. But doesn't that fact that in the second case there is no map, that in the end the man himself must decide, completely change the kind of argument being made and what it can do? A philosopher couldn't give that man the correct answer, could she, by improving the argument?

Comments

I am a little confused by the last question --the fault is mine, I am sure, but let me have a go at what you have written. Some philosophers have been and are skeptical about the objective status of ethics. Probably a philosopher like J.L. Mackie who wrote a book called Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong (approximate title) might think that ethics is indeed very much unlike deliberating about (for example) how to get to Yellowtone Park from New York City. Though I suppose if Mackie was highly skeptical about sense perception and genuinely doubted whether anyone could say Yellowstone Park exists, he might think ethics and geography are in the same boat! In any case, those of us who are not skeptical of perception and ethics might question what you advance as a disanalogy. So, in the case you cite, a moral philosopher may argue that the man should break off his affair on the grounds that it breaks a vow he has made or it involves wrongul deception or it dishonors his marriage and family and the philosopher might also suggest that there are several stages that stand out in terms of achieving reconciliation with his wife (see, for example, Charles Griswald's book Forgiveness). This might be like presenting the man with a map on how to move from a position of dishonor back to living a life of integrity. And, like the person who is trying to find the best route to Yellowstone, she or he will then have to decide whether to actually go to Yellowston or to actually seek out integrity. Despite the best of arguments in both cases, the person might decide simply to be a coach potato or have serial affairs.

Read another response by Charles Taliaferro

Read another response about Ethics