Table Of ContentMORALITY
VIBS
Volume 266
Robert Ginsberg
Founding Editor
Leonidas Donskis
Executive Editor
Associate Editors
G. John M. Abbarno Steven V. Hicks
George Allan Richard T. Hull
Gerhold K. Becker Michael Krausz
Raymond Angelo Belliotti Olli Loukola
Kenneth A. Bryson Mark Letteri
C. Stephen Byrum Vincent L. Luizzi
Robert A. Delfino Hugh P. McDonald
Rem B. Edwards Adrianne McEvoy
Malcolm D. Evans J.D. Mininger
Roland Faber Peter A. Redpath
Andrew Fitz-Gibbon Arleen L. F. Salles
Francesc Forn i Argimon John R. Shook
Daniel B. Gallagher Eddy Souffrant
William C. Gay Tuija Takala
Dane R. Gordon Emil Višňovský
J. Everet Green Anne Waters
Heta Aleksandra Gylling James R. Watson
Matti Häyry John R. Welch
Brian G. Henning Thomas Woods
a volume in
Ethical Theory and Practice
ETP
Olli Loukola, Editor
MORALITY
Reasoning on Different Approaches
Edited by Vasil Gluchman
Amsterdam - New York, NY 2013
Cover photo: www.dreamstime.com
Cover Design: Studio Pollmann
The paper on which this book is printed meets the requirements of “ISO
9706:1994, Information and documentation - Paper for documents -
Requirements for permanence”.
ISBN: 978-90-420-3727-4
E-Book ISBN: 978-94-012-0981-6
© Editions Rodopi B.V., Amsterdam - New York, NY 2013
Printed in the Netherlands
CONTENTS
Introduction Morality: Reasoning on Different Approaches 1
VASIL GLUCHMAN
Part One
DIFFERENT CONCEPTS OF MORALITY
ONE The Moral and the Ethical: What Conscience 11
Teaches us about Morality
JEREMY BENDIK-KEYMER
TWO A Critical Evaluation of a Classic Moral Scientist: 25
Are there any Moral Facts to Discover?
HOWARD M. DUCHARME
THREE Some Problems with Grounding Moral Respect 47
for Persons in Autonomy
MARK PIPER
FOUR Models of Change in Modernity and in Contemporary 65
Societies
JAN(cid:56)(cid:54)(cid:61)(cid:3)(cid:48)(cid:36)(cid:53)(cid:44)(cid:36)(cid:275)(cid:54)(cid:46)(cid:44)
FIVE Morality, Good Life, and Selflessness 79
KUMAR NEERAJ SACHDEV
Part Two
NEW TRENDS IN UNDERSTANDING MORALITY
SIX (cid:54)(cid:72)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:74)(cid:3)(cid:73)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:181)(cid:50)(cid:69)(cid:77)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:182)(cid:3)Human Good: 89
An Overview
FRANCESCO BELFIORE
SEVEN Does Neuropathology Dictate Morality? 97
Acquired Pedophilia as a Neuroethics Case
FREDERIC GILBERT
EIGHT Humanity: Biological and Moral Issues 111
VASIL GLUCHMAN
vi Contents
NINE Are Ethical Experts also Experts in Morality? 131
DIETER BIRNBACHER
TEN The Teacher as a Moral Agent: Humanity 141
and Human Dignity in the Teaching Profession
M(cid:36)(cid:53)(cid:55)(cid:36)(cid:3)(cid:42)(cid:47)(cid:56)(cid:38)(cid:43)(cid:48)(cid:36)(cid:49)(cid:50)(cid:57)(cid:200)
ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS 161
INDEX 165
Introduction
MORALITY: REASONING ON DIFFERENT
APPROACHES
Vasil Gluchman
Reasoning on and discussing the moral state of society or humanity as such,
as well as the morality of individuals are integral parts of the whole of human
history from the time when our ancestors reached self-awareness. We
permanently ask, to a greater or lesser extent, questions regarding morality of
the past, present and future. Therefore, man as well as the whole of humanity
suffers from a disunity of spirit and mind. They tend to idealize the past and to
expect or hope for a better future. Nevertheless, the present is frequently
(cid:83)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:70)(cid:72)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:3)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:74)(cid:75)(cid:87)(cid:80)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:72)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:71)(cid:82)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:81)(cid:82)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:73)(cid:88)(cid:79)(cid:73)(cid:76)(cid:79)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:72)(cid:82)(cid:83)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:182)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:76)(cid:71)(cid:72)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:80)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)
state of society and the moral level of an individual. A discrepancy between
what is and what ought to be is often so frustrating that people make
conclusions about the moral crisis of society, about the decay of morality,
moral values and the whole of humanity.
We could state that each period in human history has its own moral
problems that are, however, in many cases, constant throughout the whole
history of mankind. Sometimes they differ in urgency or intensity of
perception by people living in a period. The Nobel Prize winner, Konrad
Lorenz, like many others, claims that the human soul or human psyche, has
actually been the same since the beginning of human culture; in other words,
the ways of human experience have not changed for centuries.1 It clarifies the
reasons why we are always facing the same moral problems. The whole of
human history is full of serious moral problems. No period in our history has
been without moral problems perceived as serious and often causing offence
or resulting in a decaying of morality, moral values or even the entire human
society. I suppose that this is quite natural, since the discrepancy between
what is and what ought to be is always present in the life of a man and the
whole of mankind. Humanity would discontinue its development, including
its moral development without this discrepancy and tension. Simply, we
would morally stagnate and become stunted. The necessity to struggle with
our everyday moral problems forces us to continue in this search, in ourselves
(cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:72)(cid:82)(cid:83)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:88)(cid:81)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:88)(cid:86)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:73)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:3)(cid:69)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:179)(cid:86)(cid:72)(cid:79)(cid:73)(cid:180)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:70)(cid:82)(cid:88)(cid:79)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:86)(cid:82)(cid:80)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:80)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:69)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:88)(cid:86)(cid:75)(cid:72)(cid:71)(cid:3)
to defend itself or passively resist under such external circumstances. We
2 VASIL GLUCHMAN
frequently put what ought to be in the form of a moral duty so that a higher
level of commitment when implementing them was ensured.
When thinking about morality and its historical development, we should
perceive it within the whole development of human society, including its
scientific, technical and cultural aspects. Conflicts and discrepancies in
morality can be then understood as something natural. Any change can bring
tension and conflict. That is usually only slowly and with difficulty that
people modify their long-lasting ways of thinking and acting. However, one
should examine to what extent tension, quarrel and conflict are natural results
of change and to what extent there is something new that cannot be explained
or excused by this change. There is a real risk to consider something bad,
immoral or wrong as a natural result of change. It would be a serious mistake.
It could create space for an explanation or even acceptance of immoral actions
based on the idea that this is a process of transformation and change of values
or value paradigms.
Morality is a reflection of specific social and economic relations in a
period; however, it regulates them, as it reflects historical knowledge and
experience. The process of its transformation is slower than changes on an
economic and political level. It could be stated that morality corresponds with
the given period; however, it also contains the basic genetic set and historical
moral experience of humanity. Besides this, morality also reflects some moral
aims and models which mankind aspires to and which are formulated by
ethics as something which ought to be, something desired. The biological
basis of morality is certainly predominantly connected to the respect for and
the protection of human life. Respect for life is not something exclusively
human. This fact that this is present in the animal kingdom implies a
biological base for the given behavior among people and all animals. To
constitute our morality on ability to respect, not to kill each other, is not
sufficient proof that we are somehow special compared to the rest of nature
and does not mean that we have taken a step up in the natural or biological
chain of evolution.
The ethics and morality of the recent or distant past reveal the way of
thinking in that period about eternal questions of morality and virtues.
However, they also reveal the way people wanted to solve problems in the
past based on their level of knowledge and experience. Knowledge of the past
could also be (and is) challenging in the present day, especially concerning
questions regarding the whole of human history. It does not mean that we
should hold on to the ethical or moral opinions of the past or use any given
(cid:83)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:71)(cid:182)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:86)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:88)(cid:87)(cid:76)ons to solve contemporary moral problems. We may search for
inspiration or starting points for our reasoning when studying the history of
ethical thinking and morality; however, we cannot use it to solve the problems
relevant to our period, or a scheme valid not only in the past but also
nowadays. The validity of any ethical theory (and a period of morality) is
limited and also relative. Ethical theories have always been formulated in the
Introduction 3
form of ideals that we, in our lives, should strive to meet; rather than in a form
conforming to the state of the given period. Considering the given period,
ethical theories usually exceed the period of their origin. They do not
necessarily become reality just because they are the basis for new theories,
which try to generate a moral vision in the form of new moral ideals or even
the moral perfection of individuals and mankind.
I am convinced that the whole history of ethical thinking (including the
moral history of mankind) can contribute to solving contemporary problems
of ethics, morality, virtuousness and the human soul despite their mistakes,
faults and imperfections. History, including the history of ethical thinking and
the history of morality, should not be worshipped as an idol. On the contrary,
one should learn from history (including the history of philosophy, ethics and
morality). The ethical theories of the present day, including our morality, are
built on the shoulders of the past and it would be a grave mistake to ignore it.
The main aim of this work is to present different approaches to morality
through research of different concepts of morality and new trends in
understanding morality.
***
The book is divided into two parts. The first part deals with
philosophical and ethical concepts of morality. This part sets out a
methodological starting point for the studies presented in the following part of
the collection of essays. The second part focuses on new trends in
understanding morality.
The first part Different Concepts of Morality presents five essays. The
first one is Jeremy Bendik-Keymer(cid:182)(cid:86)(cid:3) The Moral and the Ethical: What
Conscience teaches us about Morality. No doubt, conscience teaches many
things about morality, but he only focuses on one here. That is a particularly
philosophical thing, of concern especially to people who want to understand
the logic of morality and of how it relates to being human. Bendik-Keymer
points out that conscience, understood as something real, opens a window to
human beings as social beings and, in doing so, reveals how morality depends
on social philosophy. What conscience teaches those of us who read works
such as this one is that reasoning in morality must involve not just practical
reason, but relational reason as well. Accordingly, one purpose of this essay is
to introduce what relational reason actually is. By explaining how conscience
depends on relational reason and how relational reason inevitably leads to
social philosophy, he explains how morality depends on social philosophy.
Bendik-Keymer believes such a conclusion is no more than common sense,
cleared up by conceptual analysis, but it does give us a reconstructed concept
of conscience and a direction for future work on the forms of reason involved
in being moral. Most significantly, it reminds us that morality serves human
relationships. Relational reason, thanks to conscience, is a great find.
