Morals in General
Waltzer – Reflective
A majority of the discussion in the previous class was directed toward the possibility of a universal moral consciousness, déja vu? No. It’s true we have seen and discussed this topic at length in relation to Kant. A majority of individual wills in the class proposed and supported the notion that there is no such thing as a universal moral consciousness, that it is subjective in nature and changes meaning with differences. My take, however, on Waltzer’s universal moral consciousness is similar to that of a Rousseauian general will, which is general in nature. Perhaps then it a general moral consciousness? But this then brings us back to Rousseau and the possibility of a universal general will. In any case, the moral consciousness, like the general will exists in every person whether they know it or not, it is what is good for the population in question. The general moral consciousness then is not the majority of individual morals but the morals of all in general.
Quoting Jacie from the H.M.S. Blogty: “In the quote on page 107, from which all this conflict arises, he makes a very general and ambiguous claim when he talks about the “moral conscience of mankind”. If we don’t know (or can’t agree upon) what the moral conscience of mankind is (or if it even exists) then how can we decide if human intervention is justified or not?!”
To respond to this quote I would like to reiterate why the moral consciousness of mankind is like Rousseau’s general will. Does mankind simply express the idea of humanity by simply being human? What then do we say of serial killers, rapists, and other social delinquents of the sort? Does the idea of humanity simply disappear because of the lack of humanity in these individuals? Can it still be considered universal although these individuals fail to fall within the boundary of the excepted definition of the universalism of humanity? I would like to hope that we could still consider humanity as a positive attribute to all mankind despite the occasional outlier.
Likewise, I would propose a general moral consciousness to be universal in that humans, for the majority, throughout time have acted in a repetitious moral structure. Beneath our differences in morals lies a general structure that we use to calculate our moral actions.
What do you think?
A majority of the discussion in the previous class was directed toward the possibility of a universal moral consciousness, déja vu? No. It’s true we have seen and discussed this topic at length in relation to Kant. A majority of individual wills in the class proposed and supported the notion that there is no such thing as a universal moral consciousness, that it is subjective in nature and changes meaning with differences. My take, however, on Waltzer’s universal moral consciousness is similar to that of a Rousseauian general will, which is general in nature. Perhaps then it a general moral consciousness? But this then brings us back to Rousseau and the possibility of a universal general will. In any case, the moral consciousness, like the general will exists in every person whether they know it or not, it is what is good for the population in question. The general moral consciousness then is not the majority of individual morals but the morals of all in general.
Quoting Jacie from the H.M.S. Blogty: “In the quote on page 107, from which all this conflict arises, he makes a very general and ambiguous claim when he talks about the “moral conscience of mankind”. If we don’t know (or can’t agree upon) what the moral conscience of mankind is (or if it even exists) then how can we decide if human intervention is justified or not?!”
To respond to this quote I would like to reiterate why the moral consciousness of mankind is like Rousseau’s general will. Does mankind simply express the idea of humanity by simply being human? What then do we say of serial killers, rapists, and other social delinquents of the sort? Does the idea of humanity simply disappear because of the lack of humanity in these individuals? Can it still be considered universal although these individuals fail to fall within the boundary of the excepted definition of the universalism of humanity? I would like to hope that we could still consider humanity as a positive attribute to all mankind despite the occasional outlier.
Likewise, I would propose a general moral consciousness to be universal in that humans, for the majority, throughout time have acted in a repetitious moral structure. Beneath our differences in morals lies a general structure that we use to calculate our moral actions.
What do you think?
posted by Holly at 9:34 PM
<< Home