Engage in Positions and Arguments on a Philosophic Topic Regarding Philosopher G. E. Moore - Term Paper Example

285973 Topic: Engage in positions and arguments on a philosophic topic regarding philosopher G. E. Moore. Introduction: If there is no perfect discipline, they say, carry on with the available discipline! Now, if one makes an attempt to demystify the concept of ‘perfect discipline’ one is likely to run into trouble and will attract arguments and counter arguments. That concept can not be one and the same for all. It will have different connotations and any absolute interpretation of the term may not be accepted by one and all. George Edward Moore (1873-1958) revolted against such absolute idealism. “Moore was an early leader in the revolt against absolute idealism. Amazed by the peculiar character of philosophical controversy, Moore supposed that common-sense beliefs about the world are correct as they are. The purpose of philosophy is not to debate their truth, but rather to seek an appropriate analysis of their significance.”(Moore…) Absolute idealism is a totalitarian concept, and any such stand will go against the free will of the individual. Common-sense beliefs, though transmitted by the collective mind of the society, in essence, relate to the domain of the individual mind. An individual is so, because he believes so! Nothing more, nothing less! Any changes in thought processes can only be achieved by the concerned individual, when he wills and make efforts for the change, because human mind is a rare individual gift of God, with immense, immeasurable power of unlimited energy, which manifests through it, when canalized on proper lines. 1 The problem that I am dealing with, why it is a problem, and why it is important. With the advancement of science, many thought that science and ethics will distance further from each other. But it is not happening. New dimensions of ethics are bringing it close to science. Most of the scientists have realized the importance of ethics. Let me give the example of action and reaction theory. Every action has the reaction and the intensity of the reaction is in proportion to the intensity of the action. Over this, no dispute exists between the people of ethics or more correctly between the spiritualists (Those who practice ethics of the highest order!) and the scientists! One of the rare agreements between the two contending forces; the two opposing forces; the forces that do not see eye to eye with each other normally! Scientific ethics began to advance gradually. With the publication in 1903 of Principia Ethica, Moore tried to establish the theoretical grounds of ethics. I am now making an attempt to deal with the problem of ‘naturalistic fallacy.’ It was the issue of hot contention between Moore and Bentham, Spenser and other philosophers who insisted on a precise, concrete definition of “Good”. Moore interjected strongly. He argues forcefully that we have to settle for an intuitive assessment of Goodness. He asks, “This, then, is our first question. What is good? And what is bad? And to the discussion of this question (or these questions) I give the name Ethics, since that science, must, at all events, include it.” (Moore, 2008, p, 55) 2. The conclusion that I want to defend. For his arguments on ‘naturalistic fallacy,’ Moore can be given some marks, but not full marks! What is the difference between right and wrong? Instead of averring that whatever I do is right, it is better for an individual to say, whatever right is there in the world belongs to me! Idealistic philosophers were right in their own way; but Moore was not totally wrong! All those, including Moore were mind-level philosophers. Mental blocks, differences of opinions, are but natural between the two minds. It is one bundle of thoughts that engages the other bundle of thoughts. Arguments and counter-arguments, between the two mind-level philosophers, have rarely helped to establish the Truth. The path to reach Truth is entirely different. Rather, Truth can never be established by verbal explanations and intelligent commentaries! One has to transcend the mind-barrier and enter the realm of Bliss! I want to say, why Moore’s contention—that we have to settle for an intuitive assessment of goodness is not a workable proposition. Moore is trapping himself with his own examples that show the confusion of his wavering mind, when he says, “Ethics is undoubtedly concerned with the question what good conduct is: but, being concerned with this, it obviously does not start at the beginning, unless it is prepared to tell us what is good as well as what is conduct. For ‘good conduct,’ is a complex notion: all conduct is not good; for some is certainly bad and some may be indifferent? And on the other hand, other things, beside conduct, may be good; and if they are so, then ‘good’ denotes some property.” (Moore, 2008, p, 54) He should have dealt with the ‘naturalistic fallacy’ in a more aggressive manner to demolish it completely. But the trouble with Moore is that those who are out to demolish something, are expected to know what they are going to build from the site of the demolished structure. The drawings of architect Moore are drawn with incomplete knowledge. Therefore, the superstructure that he has built is shaky and is not suitable for permanent habitation! My argument: As stated above, Moore desperately stands on the threshold of spirituality (“Goodness”) without being able to enter it. When he says that an individual knows the truth of many propositions, bodies and other people, the statement is incomplete and incorrect. Rather it is impossible to do correct analysis and arrive at concrete conclusions about such propositions, through the methods of external verification. Moore, at times, attempts such an option and he stumbles. He seems to be aware of his position, when he states, “There are too many persons, things and events in the world, past, present, or to come, for a discussion of their individual merits to be embraced in any science. Ethics, therefore, does not deal with facts of this nature, facts that are unique, individual, and absolutely particular: facts with which such studies as history, geography, astronomy, are compelled, in part at least, to deal. And, for this reason, it is not the business of the ethical philosopher to give personal advice or exhortation.”(Moore, 2008, p, 55)Why good should not be identified with anything else? If you wish to identify darkness, you need to know what is light. Aesthetics appreciation of anything is also riddled with the influence of pairs of opposites. If some appreciate the beauty of the rose, others notice and comment about the pricking thorns that are present along with the rose! Counter-arguments to my position: The naturalistic fallacy may mean any number of things and its interpretation will vary from writer to writer. Moore tries to explain why the naturalistic fallacy is a fallacy and in the front of intellectual battle, he scores over the philosophers of the yester-years. Human mind is the double-edged sword! Moore says that which is good is good. But does that good holds good for all time to come for the same individual? That good individual, in fact, does not know how potent his mind is, and how useful it can prove? Whether it has the capacity to convert the bad circumstances into good? Leave aside the issues related to the inner world, human mind has exhibited its prowess admirably even at the surface level world! The journey of man from the age of horse-driven carts to the age of steam engines and, finally, to the age of computerized traveling and space travel during the last hundred years bears testimony to the dexterity of mental efficacy. That, which was good to an individual a few decades ago, is not good now! Apart from the goodness, an individual has the capacity derived from moral, ethical and spiritual powers, and the concept of goodness may change with the same individual from time to time. Respond to the counter-arguments by noting weaknesses. What is the definition of “the good” Moore is referring to? When the author says that he clearly believes that “Goodness” is not the result of sensory experience, or even that exists temporarily, he is certainly speaks about the beyond-the-mind level issues. He says, “Goodness” is a fundamental entity and cannot be defined. This means, all visible variations that we perceive in the world around us in relation to “Goodness” are the outcome of thought-level gradations or mental-level distinctions. Granting that “Goodness” can not be defined is there a process to achieve that state of “Goodness?” If one can not properly guide us to about the procedures to reach that level of “Goodness”, what is one’s credibility to tell us about that fundamental Goodness? Is one engaged in some guesswork? If “Goodness” is the product of intuition, can that level of intuition be achieved? Can it be ordinarily achieved or is it necessary to make special efforts for it? Is guidance from any other source required? Even with such efforts what is the guarantee that the aspired level of intuition has been achieved? Assuming that level of intuition is achieved, can it be maintained at that level permanently? If it tumbles from that level what are the reasons for such happening and how to regain that position? A brief summary of what and how successfully I have defended my position. When Moore makes the final statement that “Goodness” is fundamental without elucidating the procedures to achieve that state of “Goodness”, it is as good as a Mathematician stating the question and telling the answer, without revealing the necessary steps to arrive at that answer. Talking about the apple any number of times, will not provide the experience of its taste. Cutting the apple in to slices and arranging them beautifully in a plate and placing before one, will not give a clue about its taste either. Some one has to tell about the procedure of eating those slices, and one needs to taste it to have actual experience of the apple. This leads us to the proposition that the necessary search to seek that “Goodness” needs to be initiated. To realize that fundamental procedure, the path chosen too needs to be fundamental and that can not vary from individual to individual. The tools at the disposal of an individual to achieve that state are his body, mind and intellect. Therefore, how can one say something definite about “Goodness,” without communing with “Goodness?” Who will tell one about the strategy of communion with that “Goodness?” Moore, at this juncture, beats the retreat! One feels that Moore is contradicting Moore! He argues that “Good” and “Bad” in regards to ends are factual matters. His approach is something of a utilitarian in practical ethics—he sees the right conduct in relation to the consequences of the conduct in question. He also concedes allowance for variations in right conduct from time to time and situation to situation. An act performed at one time in one scenario may well have different consequences as the same act performed in a slightly different situation in another time. Human mind being a consciously thinking machine and this difference is the result of variation at the level of thinking-ability and reasoning power. This is what distinguishes a man from other species and, above all, from other human beings, thus making him unique. No doubt, the true nature of the man is “Goodness.” It is the same everywhere and all around. All possible variations are the outcome of the superimposition of mind and its tendencies on “Goodness”, resulting in its contamination and conditioning. For example, water everywhere is the same, since, wherever you go throughout the globe, the chemical composition of water is H2O, which never varies with time and space. But then, what makes sea water different from lake water or ocean water different from tap water? It is only the level of contamination or the extent to which minerals and other chemical compounds are mixed in it! Likewise, “Goodness” being the same, the difference in individual beings lies in the way they are conditioned by their mind and respective mental temperaments. At some stage, Moore seems to concede his inability to explain about the strategy of communion with “Goodness”, about which he speaks with authority and conviction. “Moore himself, in his autobiographical statement for the Living Philosophers volume, confessed that Wittgenstein "has made me think that what is required for the solution of philosophical problems which baffle me, is a method quite different from any which I have ever used - a method which he himself uses successfully, but which I have never been able to understand clearly enough to use it myself." (Schultz, 2003) This is the typical approach of Moore to his arguments and assertions. “Moore had an unparalleled ability for identifying philosophical ‘phenomena’. His own discussions of their significance are not always satisfying; but he would be the first to acknowledge his own fallibility. What matters is, that if we start where he starts, we can be sure that we are dealing with something that will tell us something important about ourselves and the world.”(Baldwin, 2004) He seems to have engaged himself in the eternal search, but caught in confusion midway, being unable to find the correct track through which he could have pursued the journey to its logical end. Works Cited: Baldwin, T: Article (2004) George Edward Moore (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) The Philosophy of G. E. Moore Northwestern University Press ... W. J. Frankena ‘Obligation and Value in the Ethics of G. E. Moore’ in P. A. Schilpp (ed. plato.stanford.edu/entries/moore/ - Retrieved on April 1, 2009 Moore, G.E. (Author), Baldwin Thomas (Editor): Book: Principia Ethica Paperback: 352 pages Publisher: Cambridge University Press; 2 edition (January 12, 2008) Language: English ISBN-10: 0521448484 ISBN-13: 978-0521448482 Moore….9 Aug 2006 www.philosophypages.com/ph/moor.htm - 8k -Retrieved on April 1, 2009 Schultz, Bart, Article: G. E. Moore With the centenary of the publication of G E Moores classic Principia Ethica (1903), July 2003. www.philosophers.co.uk/cafe/phil_jul2003.htm - 16k - Retrieved on April 1, 2009 Read More