McDowell's Virtue and Reason - Coursework Example

section/# McDowell and Ethics: A Review and Analysis Introduction A baseline of understanding with respect to morality, ethics, and virtue is ultimately the driving force that has encouraged philosophers to engage with these issues since the earliest representation of philosophy. Naturally, as the name itself suggests, there are multiple different approaches and ideologies through which these particular concepts can be understood. Although it is outside the scope of this together analysis to engage in an exhaustive study of ethics, morality, and virtue, the analysis instead will engage with a discussion and representation of John McDowell’s piece entitled “virtue and reason”. More specifically, the analysis will be broken into four distinct parts. The first of these will be focused upon elaborating upon the main issues presented within McDowell’s text. Following this will be a section that presents this author’s argument concerning McDowell’s text and the strength of logic and philosophical inquiry that it represents. Thirdly, objections from the critics point of view will be incorporated analyzed within the space of this response. Lastly, response to these objections will be included in the form of an analytical inquiry which seeks to weigh the strengths of McDowell’s approach as compared to those that have already been listed with respect to critics. It is the hope of this author that such a unit of analysis will be beneficial with respect to allowing the reader to come to a further level of understanding concerning the topics represented and issues discussed within McDowell’s piece. 2) Elaborate the Issue McDowell begins his case by analyzing the fact that morality is ultimately a philosophical construct that is attempting to interpret Powell individuals should live and what moral con strains best effect right living. Within such an understanding, ethics are represented as “right conduct” and norms that can help to bring about certain set of moral principles in society or within the individual. From such representation, McDowell highlights the fact that ethics are ultimately to tools and vehicle through which morality is defined. With such a locus of emphasis upon ethics, McDowell reasons that the ethics of virtuous behavior is ultimately that which should be analyzed to the greatest degree. The underlying reason behind this is with regard to the fact that virtue, as McDowell defines – and indeed as Socrates and many other philosophers have defined, as a means through which ethics can be affected. By defining this issue within the rubric that has already been discussed, McDowell presents the reader with Socrates interpretation of virtue as being defined by knowledge. Within this particular interpretation, McDowell highlights the fact that knowledge is ultimately a blind construct that is not sufficient to help to determine virtue, ethics, or morality. Realizing this shortcoming, McDowell set about to engage in alternative approach to virtue that is based not upon knowledge but upon kindness. Although McDowell appreciates the inference on ethics, virtue, knowledge, and morality that Socrates has provided, he seeks to draw a distinctly alternative set of approaches towards the way in which classical Greek philosophy should be understood and defined. McDowell points to the fact that the case of kindness, much as with the case of knowledge, requires a continuous and daily choice to engage with the world in a given construct. Furthermore, McDowell underscores the fact that motivation for kindness within the individual is something that springs from a desire to do the right thing or to assist in the better quality of life for others etc. Within these norms, McDowell consistently illustrates the fact that Socrates construct of knowledge. Of defining appropriate and ethical responses to situations; whereas a philosophical construct an approach that kindness illustrates is able to sufficiently fulfill all of them. 3) Present of Student’s Perspective: According to the text of McDowell’s analysis, he states the following: “Of course a kind person need not himself classify the behavior he sees to be called for, on one of the relevant occasions, as kind. He need not be articulate enough to possess concepts of the particular virtues; and even if he does, the concepts need not enter into his reasons for the actions which manifest those particular virtues. It is enough if he thinks of what he does, when- as we put it – he shows himself to be kind. , under some such descriptions as ‘the thing to do’. The description need not differ from that under which he thinks of other actions of his, which we regard as manifesting different virtues; the division into actions which manifest kindness and actions which manifest other virtues can be imposed, not by the agent himself, but by a possibly more articulate and more theoretically oriented observer” (McDowell 332). Beyond merely being extraordinarily articulate, this particular passage underscores what this student sees as a fundamental weakness and shortcoming of McDowell’s approach. The shortcoming has to do with the fact that McDowell appears to believe that the virtuous behavior, norm, or approach that kindness represents is not one that need be understood or purposefully and acted within the life of the individual in order for it to the virtuous or moral. Naturally, the obvious question that this raises within the mind of the analyst is whether or not an action, norm, or worldview can be considered as virtuous or ethical/moral in the event that an individual is not even engaging with such an intention. Although it is necessarily “good” goodness and virtue cannot be considered as sufficiently acceptable to determine whether or not a particular approach is moral or ethical; especially when the impetus for such a behavior is either unknown or unappreciated. 4) Objection from a Critic  In terms of the most reasonable objection from a critic, it is the understanding of this student that Socrates would be the most relevant of these critics; due in large part to the fact that McDowell references the shortcomings of Socratic theory concerning virtue, ethics, and morality multiple times throughout the course of his particular essay. According to Socrates, virtue must be based upon logic and understanding; not merely “good works, good ideas, or right behavior”. Within such an understanding, it is clear and apparent that McDowell’s approach falls far short with respect to meeting the requirements that Socrates has laid out within his interpretation of what defines ethics, morals, and virtues. Almost as if she understood the moral shortcoming of his approach, McDowell provides the following quote in seeking to counter Socrates representation of these concepts: “The consideration of reduced so far suggest that the knowledge constructed by the reliable sensitivity is a necessary condition for possession of virtue. But they do not show that knowledge is, as in the Socratic thesis, to be identified with the virtue ” (McDowell 333). Socrates likely response to this would be one underscores a difference with respect to the way in which knowledge and “kindness” can be understood as philosophical measurements of virtue. For instance, if knowledge is virtuous then the inverse of knowledge would be un-virtuous. The inverse of knowledge can be considered as ignorance. As such, ignorance is a choice; just as knowledge is a choice (Burger 17). By maintaining the differential between Socratic “choice” theory and that of McDowell, Socrates would likely illustrate the fact that McDowell’s approach is an ineffective one; due to the understanding that reason and understanding is not required in order to engage with kindness. This is illustrated in the sense that McDowell believes that many individuals utilize “kindness” as a virtue based upon no other understanding than it is the “right thing to do” 5) Response to Objection In terms of raising a response to a Socratic objection to McDowell’s interpretation of kindness as a virtue, it is the understanding of this student that McDowell’s approach is ultimately less logical and less grounded in fact as compared to Socrates. Whereas it is true that there is a great deal of merit and effective scholarship that is represented within McDowell’s point of view, he does his theoretical approach a disservice in the fact that he does not find it necessary to provide a logical end or reason/rational behind kindness. The underlying cause for why McDowell eschews this to the degree in which he does is moist likely concentric on the fact that he is seeking to distance himself from what he sees as the overly formulaic and mathematical interpretation of ethics, morals, and virtues that Socrates lays out. Yet, in distancing himself from these, McDowell exposes himself to the criticism of not representing sufficient referencing or data to back up his claim. 6) Conclusion From the information that has thus far been discussed, it is clear and apparent that both McDowell and Socrates have powerful convictions with respect to the way in which life should be lived and the manner through which human actions/choices help to define such a life. However, irrespective of the similarities between these two theorists, McDowell makes a rather weak attempt at bringing Socratic theory into the modern era; especially due to the fact that he effectively weakens it as a result of his desire to make it relevant to norms and mores that it was never directed towards accomplishing. Works Cited Burger, Ronna. Aristotles dialogue with Socrates : on the Nicomachean ethics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009. Print. McDowell, John. "Virtue and Reason." The Concept of a Person in Ethical Theory62.3 (1979): 331-350. Web. 13 July 2014. Read More