Tag Archives: Kant

Moral

Emmeline Wilcox took the ‘Philosophical Britain‘ module at Queen Mary in 2016. In this post she writes about ‘moral’ as a philosophical keyword.

Growing up as a Harry Potter fanatic, I lapped up all the moral messages that littered the books. The importance of empathy, friendship, loyalty, love, and acceptance were set out as qualities that should be fostered. Finding moral lessons in stories is not unfamiliar ground when you’re a child. In fact, as children we are bombarded with moral messages. A children’s TV show, for example, will most likely take you on a journey of moral discovery. Characters make mistakes, and lessons are learned. In this way, the child can reap the moral benefits without the anguish of making mistakes. Teaching moral behaviour in children is essentially teaching a child how to live in our society, and what is expected of them. To my delight, a whole book has been dedicated to child moral development using Harry Potter as a basis. However, this use of the word ‘moral’ in terms of a lesson is just one of the ways we use the word. Exploring other definitions and usages of the word takes us deep into our history.

‘The Potter books in general are a prolonged argument for tolerance, a prolonged plea for an end to bigotry. And I think it’s one of the reasons that some people don’t like the books, but I think that’s it’s a very healthy message to pass on to younger people that you should question authority and you should not assume that the establishment or the press tells you all of the truth.’ – J.K. Rowling.

The word ‘moral’ first appeared in the English language around the mid to late 14th century. It is thought that the word was first used by John Gower to translate the Latin title of St. Gregory the Great’s moral exposition on the Book of Job (Moralia, sive Expositio in Job) for use in his poem, The Lovers’ Confession (circa. 1393). The Latin word moralis (the singular of moralia) literally translated from Latin to ‘pertaining to manners’ – with mos meaning manner, custom, or law. The word ‘moral’ was subsequently used in translating many other classical works. The use of moral as an adjective can similarly be traced back to the late 14th century – first appearing in Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales with the term ‘moral virtue’ (circa. 1387-95). Crucially, the use of the word as both an adjective and a noun emerged around the same time: Gower used the word as a noun, and Chaucer used the word as an adjective.

St. Gregory the Great

“Forthi Gregoire in his Moral / Seith that a man in special” – Gower.

 

Moral: Human Behaviour

The earliest use of the word as an adjective, merely indicated human behaviour and was unchanged from its Latin meaning. It is this definition that the term ‘moral philosophy’ has sprung from. Moral philosophy and ‘ethics’ are often seen as one in the same and are frequently used interchangeably. Surprisingly, the two words actually share a common evolutionary ancestor: the Latin word moralis was coined by Cicero when translating the ancient Greek word ethikos. Moral philosophy, being concerned with the big question of how we should live our lives, is a topic that has been taken up by many philosophers over the course of history. From Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics; Immanuel Kant’s The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals; and G.E. Moore’s Principia Ethica are just a few examples of philosophers who have explored moral philosophy and ethics. Moral philosophers have traditionally been divided into two categories: moral universalists, and moral relativists. Moral universalists believe that there is a moral code which all humans share, and it can be arrived at through rational thought. Moral relativists (and later moral sceptics) denied that these universal moral laws exist, citing that many different cultures had very different moral codes.

In the mid 20th century, the meaning of ‘moral’ which referred to behaviour, was taken up by scientists and transformed into something that could now be tested and measured. With the advent of behavioural psychology in the 1920s, psychologists began to test morals and explore moral development. Psychologists such as Jean Piaget and Lawrence Kohlberg came up with theories of moral development in children. In adults, the famous 1963 Milgram experiment tested the strength of someone’s ‘moral imperative against hurting others’. Milgram’s experiment is certainly a mirror of the time – the study was set up as an attempt to explain how the holocaust could ever have occurred.

“Stark authority was pitted against the subjects' [participants'] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects' [participants'] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not.”

“Stark authority was pitted against the subjects’ [participants’] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects’ [participants’] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not.”

Moral: good behaviour or having good principles 

In the mid 15th century, the word took on a positive definition – meaning virtuous, or good behaviour and beliefs. We can infer a great deal about a society or person when the term moral is used as a justification for views or behaviour. Most starkly, we can begin to deduce someone’s general political views when he or she states that something is ‘moral’. For example, in 2004(?), Tony Benn stated that ‘there is no moral difference between a stealth bomber and a suicide bomber. Both kill innocent people for political reasons.’ Conversely, and more recently, the exact word, was used by David Cameron to justify an opposing stance. When attempting to justify his position on airstrikes in Syria, Cameron claimed that there was a ‘moral case‘. Even Katie Hopkins, famed for causing outrage by expressing views which oppose generally accepted morals, still likes to think she has a ‘moral compass’. Hopkins claims that her moral compass is only different as it is ‘not to do with religion […], it’s something to do with Britishness.‘.  When people talk about what they believe is moral, we can begin to make a good stab at where they are on the political spectrum. When Katie Hopkins associates her morals with nationalism, we can infer that she is a nationalist and is therefore right wing. When Tony Benn associates morality with an anti-war agenda, we can reasonably guess that he is sympathetic to the left. George Lakoff wrote the book Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think – ultimately illustrating how the difference in morals is the fundamental factor when it comes to differing political views.

What is perhaps most illuminating, is that no one wants to come across as someone who is not in possession of morals. If you say ‘you have no morals’ it is an insult – an insult which is often aimed at the youth – apparently all those moral lessons in Harry Potter wear of off by adolescence. A world full of these immoral youths is a very frightening place – so much so, that this fear of immorality has been given its own term: moral panic. This term first appeared in Galaxy Magazine in 1877, when it was stated that the financial crisis of 1873 ‘has been followed by a moral panic.’ However, it wasn’t until the mid 1970s onwards that, in the western world, we really have been in a moral panic with the term dramatically increasing during this time. The increase could possibly be attributed to growing crime rates and illegal drug use – with drug use reaching its peak in 1995 when it is was reported that almost half of young people in Britain had tried an illegal drug. This is compared to 1950 when only 5% of young people were reported to have tried illegal drugs. Of course the HIV/AIDS epidemic of the 1980s, nicknamed the ‘gay plague’ created an enormous amount of moral panic around sexuality and promiscuity.

Moral Panic

The moral panic of the HIV/AIDS epidemic feeds into the definition that surprised me the most during my research on the word ‘moral’. One of the definitions given to me by dictionary.com, was that ‘moral’ meant ‘Virtuous in sexual matters; chaste’. Out of the many definitions, this was the only time that a dictionary had given me a precise example of moral behaviour as its definition. What seems very illuminating was how it was in sexual matters that the dictionary was telling us how to behave. Why is being chaste seen as the pinnacle of being moral? Why had none of the behaviours that J.K. Rowling had taught me not made it to the definition? Is this definition just a hangover from a pre-1960s age? Luckily a quick search for chaste in the Oxford English Dictionary confirmed for me that a definition for chaste was ‘Morally pure, free from guilt, innocent. Obs.’ – with ‘obs.’ actually meaning obsolete (and not ‘obviously’ as I began to believe, thinking that the OED was giving me attitude through text language). The strong association of morality and sex in western culture can be traced back to the beginnings of Christianity. Even before this, chastity was encouraged as a way of increasing paternal certainty and encourage ‘male paternal investment’. Thus, we can infer that the use of the word ‘moral’ to mean ‘chastity’ was almost inevitably going to happen – dating back thousands of years.

“In Western culture, at least since its Christian formation, there has been a perduring tendency to give too much importance to the morality of sex… ‘morality’ is almost reduced to ‘sexual morality’” – Margaret Farley

‘The Moral of the Story…’

The word moral is delightfully versatile. It is used to justify, to insult, and to scaremonger. The way people use the word can reveal a person’s views about politics, or even their views about sex. It is used in Parliament, in scientific reports, and in philosophical treaties. Yet it is simultaneously used in tabloids – with even the likes of Katie Hopkins appearing to give some thought to its meaning.

Bibliography

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, (London: Penguin Classics, 350 BC/2004)

Benedict, Leo, ‘How the British Fell Out of Love With Drugs’, The Guardian, 24/02/2011, <http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/feb/24/british-drug-use-falling> [Accessed: 26/02/2016]

Burkart, Gina, A Parents Guide to Harry Potter, (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2009)

Cameron, David, quoted in, Andrew Sparrow, ‘Cameron sets out ‘moral case’ for airstrikes against Isis in Syria – Politics live’, The Guardian, 26/11/2015, <http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/nov/26/cameron-statement-syria-isis-air-strikes-not-a-sign-of-weakness-politics-live> [Accessed: 26/02/2016]

Chaucer, Geoffrey, The Canterbury Tales, (London: Penguin Classics, 1475/2003)

Gower, John, Confessio Amantis, (Charlston: Nabu Press, c. 1399/2012) 

Hopkins, Katie, quoted in, Hesham Mashhours, ‘‘Do You Have a Moral Compass?’ – BlewsWire Interviews Katie Hopkins’, BlewsWire,  <http://blewswire.com/do-you-have-a-moral-compass-blewswire-interviews-katie-hopkins/> [Accessed: 26/02/2016]

Kant, Immanuel, The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, 2nd edn, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1785/2012)

Lakoff, George, Moral Politics: How Liberal and Conservatives Think, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002)

Moore, G.E., Principia Ethica, (Kent: Dover Publications, 1903/2004)

Price, Michael E., ‘FromDarwin to Eternity: Why Does Morality Focus So Much On Sex?’, Psychology Today, (2013), <https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/darwin-eternity/201307/why-does-morality-focus-so-much-sex> [Accessed: 26/02/2016]

Thatcher, Margaret, ‘The Moral Foundations of Society’, Speech delivered at Hillsdale College, 11/1994.

Thompson, Gavin, Hawkins, Oliver, Dar, Aliyah, Taylor, Mark, Olympic Britain: Social and Economic Change Since the 1908 and 1948 London Games, (London: House of Commons Publications, 2012)

Westacott, Emrys, ‘Moral Relativism’, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, <http://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-re/> [Accessed: 27/02/2016]

Idealism

In this post, Nicola Isaacs, who took the ‘Philosophical Britain‘ module at Queen Mary in 2015, writes about ‘Idealism’ as a philosophical keyword.

There is no term so vague as Idealism. No satisfactory definition of the word has ever been made; because since Plato and Aristotle wrote, hundreds of writers on Metaphysics and Philosophy have handled the subject of Idealism in Life and Art and so enmeshed and obscured the matter, that it is of no practical use for the layman to wade through the oceans of speculative and transcendental writing on the subject.[1]

These are the words of Frederick Wellington Ruckstuhl from an article dating back to January 1917. We can infer that Idealism has always been exceedingly difficult to describe, thus, many academic texts on this topic have always confronted the study with a pessimistic attitude. I fear that any attempts to discern a definition, unavoidably begins on a negative footing.

In the above quotation Ruckstuhl alludes to Idealism’s philosophical roots in Platonic thought. It is frequently referred to in this domain as ‘an eternally existing pattern of which individual things in any class are imperfect copies.’[2] It is here which marks the beginning of a turbulent chronology in philosophical thought however its etymological base ‘idein’ literally translates as ‘to see’ – whilst this definition is somewhat useful provides a comprehensive view of what idealism is; it simultaneously encompasses a wide scope of sub-contexts and divisions which cannot be defined so simply.

Idealism has innumerable connotations and departs into many different avenues. Searches offer a broad spectrum of results amongst which include more of the popular idealisms, such as transcendental, pragmatic, Kant and Collingwood; but also listed are less familiar concepts, like crazy Idealism, Buddhist practices such as Yogācāra Idealism, or one article by journalist Alan W. Down, examining Muscular Idealism – the notion of promoting peace in Middle East by using military power – not a vigorous fitness regime. From this selection of search results, it is clear that defining the term by any means of precision proves to be problematic, however in spite of this some commendable attempts have been made. In an article written in 1933, Edgar Sheffield Brightman alludes to this predicament, writing:

Whatever be the reasons for hostility to the definition and use of terms descriptive of philosophical systems, it has had undesirable consequences. It has tended to aid and abet the fiction that we have reached a point where there are no fundamental differences among systems or “schools” of philosophy. It has encouraged each philosopher to entertain the delusion that the implicit (nameless) system which he holds is the only truth, or (worse still) is so original and so genuinely unique that it cannot be related by any conceptual definition to any other system. (That way lies madness.) It has fostered the disintegrating belief that no system is worthy of attention and that philosophy consists solely of specialized problems.[3]

This quote of Brightman’s summarises the ambiguities of Idealism well. There is a plethora of persuasive arguments from different individuals within different schools convincing us that their concept of the term is correct. However one of the most notable is German Idealism.

In a general sense, Immanuel Kant is recognised as the personification of German idealism. Nonetheless, there are factions within this school, Kant is principally associated with the branch of Transcendental idealism. Philosopher and theologian Keith Ward gives a lecture detailing Kantian ethics, he claims that, ‘Kant’s proposed solution of polarities is at the heart of his Critical philosophy. It is the doctrine of Transcendental Idealism.’[4] Transcendental Idealism is the postulation of a reality without any sensory experience. Robin G. Collingwood resents the notion of Idealism as intrinsically German, and divorces the two in his work, often justifying Idealism’s separate identity.

It is Collingwood who is most often associated British idealism and who denounces the realists most emphatically. However recent commentaries challenge this stereotype, James Connelly questions whether Collingwood should be labelled an Idealist; he makes the suggestion his persona mirrors the complications of the term, in that both Collingwood and Idealism both deny any certified definition. To elaborate, Connelly observes: ‘The key to Collingwood’s Autobiography lies in what he opposed. He opposed realists and said so.’[5] In fact, more often than not, it seems that idealism is defined by what it is not, rather than what it is. In this respect, it is realism which is its antithesis. Whilst featuring heavily in philosophical spheres; this juxtaposition – between Idealism and Realism – can, too, be identified in the literary realm.

In 1925, George Bernard Shaw won the Nobel Prize in Literature ‘for his work which is marked by both idealism and humanity. Its stimulating satire often being infused with a singular poetic beauty.’[6] In his 1891 essay The Quintessence of Ibsenism he argues that society constitutes of three discrete types of people: philistines, who have no capacity for creative thought; idealists, who believe in the tangibility of the impossible; and realists, who can see the world for what it is.[7] His 1905 play, Major Barbara is representative of his personal philosophy, conflicting religious idealism against pragmatic realism within a single family unit, the play demonstrates that neither extreme is viable, for idealists often do not accomplish anything, and realists are too concerned with the practical.

Major Barbara

Here is an image of Wendy Hiller from the 1941 film Major Barbara. Bernard Shaw helped write the screenplay. The link – see bibliography -shows a short clip of Barbara giving her most famous speech.

In his text The Sources of Idealism Shaw grapples with the idealism-realism dichotomy again. He writes:

[…] the two cannot agree. The idealist says, “Realism means egotism; and egotism means depravity.” The realist declares that when a man abnegates, the will to live and be free in a world of the living, and free, seeking only to conform to ideals for the sake of being, not himself, but “a good man,” then he is morally dead and rotten, and must be left unheeded to abide his resurrection, if that by good luck arrive before his bodily death. Unfortunately, this is the sort of speech that nobody but a realist understands. It will be more amusing as well as more convincing to take an actual example of an idealist criticising a realist.[8]

Following this argument, Keith Ward delivers another insightful lecture uncovering the meaning of this final sentence. An Idealist View of Reality explores the origins of Idealism, which Ward explains is typified by British idealist Bishop George Berkeley. In simple terms, Berkeley posits the idea that reality consists exclusively of minds and their ideas.[9] Ward expands upon this, commentating that ‘Idealists do not deny reality-in-itself – this is one prevalent misunderstanding of Berkeley- Idealists say that what we call the material or physical is a set of appearances that exist as we see them only in human minds. Whatever it is that appears, it is not identical with appearances. Therefore reality-in-itself is not physical. What we call the physical is in fact mind-dependent.’[10]

Realism was not Idealism’s only enemy. Stefan Collini in his article Idealism and ‘Cambridge Idealism’ surveys that, alike German Idealism, the British context of the nineteenth century witnessed tempestuous disputes between scholars. Collini records a certain spat between two Oxbridge academics. The quarrel saw accusatory insults denouncing each other’s theses as ‘dogmatic’, ‘vehemently propagandist’ and ‘superficial and sometimes even unintelligent.’[11]

ngram realism

A Google Ngram Viewer graph showing the divergence of frequency of use between ‘realism’ and ‘idealism’ since the 1940s.

In Britain, popular perceptions of Idealism reserve the term for dreamers, futurists and the impractical, whereas, it is generally argued that Realists are pragmatic, resourceful and sane. Figures show that the uses of the two terms have always shared similar trends, however, since 1945, Realism has ascended on the scale, whilst Idealism has declined.[12] Yet, it should be noted that data such as this, does not provide the context in which the terms are located. So, whether we are a nation of practicality, or a nation of dreamers, is a question that remains unanswered, and – perhaps thankfully – unknown.

Bibliography

Articles

Collini, S., ‘Idealism and “Cambridge Idealism”’, The Historical Journal, Vol. 18/ No. 1, (February, 2009) pp. 171-177

Wellington Ruckstuhl, F., ‘Idealism and Realism in Art’, The Art World, Vol. 1/ No. 4, (January, 1917) pp. 252-256

Sheffield Brightman, E., ‘The Definition of Idealism’, The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 30/ No. 16, (August, 1933) pp. 429-435

Books

Boucher, D. and Smith, T. (eds.), R.G. Collingwood: An Autobiography and Other Writings: With Essays on Collingwood’s Life and Work, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013)

Websites and Online Databases

George Berkeley, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/berkeley/, [accessed 15/04/2015]

George Bernard Shaw, Sources of Idealism, [accessed online] available at http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Essays/Best/ShawIdealism.htm, [accessed 11/04/2015]

“idea” – definition of idea in the OED, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/idea, [accessed 10/04/2015]

Idealism, Realism – Google Ngram Viewer, https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=realism%2C+idealism&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Crealism%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cidealism%3B%2Cc0, [accessed 15/04/2015]

Major Barbara – The Irish Times, http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/stage/major-barbara-shaw-s-morality-play-brought-to-vivid-contemporary-life-1.1489647, [accessed 16/04/2015]

The Nobel Prize in Literature 1925, http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1925/, [accessed 17/04/2015]

Videos

Gresham College, 2008: The Idealist View of Reality – Professor Keith Ward, available at http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/the-idealist-view-of-reality, [accessed 15/04/2015]

Gresham College, 2008: The Triumph of Idealism – Professor Keith Ward, available at: http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/the-triumph-of-idealism, [accessed 15/04/2015]

Major Barbara Speaking (1941) available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BANsa3_v008, [accessed 15/04/2015]

Further Reading

Berman, D., George Berkeley: Idealism and the Man, (London: Clarendon Press, 1996)

Bernard Shaw, G. The Quintessence of Ibsenism, (London: Kessinger Publishing, 2009)

Collingwood, R. G., An Autobiography and Other Writings, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013)

Howell, R. C., Kant’s Transcendental Deduction, (Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publications, 1992)

Kant, I., The Metaphysics of Morals, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996)

References

[1] Frederick Wellington Ruckstuhl, ‘Idealism and Realism in Art’, The Art World, Vol. 1/ No. 4, (January, 1917) pp. 252-256 (p. 252)

[2] Idea – definition of idea in the OED, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/idea, [accessed 10/04/2015]

[3] Edgar Sheffield Brightman, ‘The Definition of Idealism’, The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 30/ No. 16, (August, 1933) pp. 429-435 (p. 431)

[4] Gresham College, 2008: The Triumph of Idealism – Professor Keith Ward, available at: http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/the-triumph-of-idealism, [accessed 15/04/2015]

[5] James Connelly, ‘Collingwood Controversies’ in David Boucher and Teresa Smith (eds.), R.G. Collingwood: An Autobiography and Other Writings: With Essays on Collingwood’s Life and Work, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013) p. 424

[6] The Nobel Prize in Literature 1925, http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1925/, [accessed 17/04/2015]

[7] Major Barbara – The Irish Times, http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/stage/major-barbara-shaw-s-morality-play-brought-to-vivid-contemporary-life-1.1489647, [accessed 16/04/2015]

[8] George Bernard Shaw, Sources of Idealism, [accessed online] available at http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Essays/Best/ShawIdealism.htm, [accessed 11/04/2015]

[9] George Berkeley, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/berkeley/, [accessed 15/04/2015]

[10] Gresham College, 2008: The Idealist View of Reality – Professor Keith Ward, available at http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/the-idealist-view-of-reality, [accessed 15/04/2015]

[11] Stefan Collini, ‘Idealism and “Cambridge Idealism”’, The Historical Journal, Vol. 18/ No. 1, (February, 2009) pp. 171-177 (p. 172)

[12] Idealism, Realism – Google Ngram Viewer, https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=realism%2C+idealism&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Crealism%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cidealism%3B%2Cc0, [accessed 15/04/2015]