This semniar is intended as a philosophical discussion group in English. We want to discuss shorter texts which are well written and philosophically interesting, and preferably of general interest.
The texts we will read are of such a kind that the train of thought, or the argument, is not obvious a the very first glance.
The seminar will be held online, this means that we will mainly be practicing our writing skills. If we should be a small group only, we may be able to arrange for a meeting in person - apart from a bit of Zoom.
Last semester, we did a seminar of the same title in a written form only, except for a few personal conversations towards the end of the semester. We read Wittgenstein's "Lecture on Ethics" and three essays by David Hume (Of the Immortality of the Soul, Of Suicide, and Of the Standard of Taste), and there were introductions and questions for each week. The answers of the participants (plus my reactions to these answers) helped to create a quite lively discussion.
Discussions: Preliminary Schedule
I suggest that we first discuss Wittgenstein’s „Lecture on Ethics“ (I): Here we find a radical view about the nature of ethics, based on a strict logical analysis of language which accepts only factual statements as having sense.
Hume’s Essay „Of the Immortaliy of the Soul“ (II) will introduce us to Hume’s empiricist way of thinking, pointing out how the arguments offered in favor of it will mostly be without any sense, or at best, simply not cogent.
From here we can choose: We could discuss the Essay „Of Suicide“ (IV), or his text about his fundamental views regarding morality (III).
In Hume’s Essay „Why Utility Pleases“ we encounter the positive, constructive side of Hume (a side almost unknown to most). In his essay, he introduces a way to think about ethical matters in a novel, yet empirical way – one which may offer a way out of Wittgenstein’s predicament.
I Wittgenstein, Lecture on Ethics
1 Ethial judgments are not relative, but absolute (categorical). They do not express facts and thus have no content, no sense. Therefore there cannot be any ethical sentencs or propositions.
2 But why do we still use such senseless ethical sentences? These are of a personal nature. LWs examples are: „I wonder at the existence of the world“, „I feel absolutely safe“, and „I feel (absolutely) guilty“. These are nonsensical, as they express nothing which could be otherwise. The resemble religious expressions like: „God created the world“, „We are safe in the hands of God“, or „We are guilty in the face of God“. May they be some sort of metaphorical comparison or simile? No, because these metaphors cannot be translated into anything having sense. The very nature of LWs statements is their nonsenicality and their paradoxical nature.
3 But should there not be any analysis of these statements, as they occur repeatedly – should we not try a scientific, or a logical analysis? LW says: No, these statements can only be of an ethical nature, because they are nonsensical, so we must reject any attempt to reduce them t anything with sense. However, this tendency to say such nonsensical stuff connects to the most important thins in life, and LW would never ridicule it.
II Hume, Of the Immortaliy of the Soul
Hume discusses, analyzes and rejects three types of arguments in favor of the Immortaliy of the Soul. He will find the metaphysical arguments incoherent, the moral arguments blatantly immoral, and the physical arguments simply unconvincing. Here are the pros in a nutshell:
1 Metaphysical arguments: The human soul is a simple, indestructible substance – and its mortality seems to be inconceivable.
2 Moral arguments: In order to ensure justice, God created us in such a way that our sind can be punished eternally, and our good deeds can be rewarded eternally.
3 Physical arguments: Isn’t the human soul so different from anything else in nature, that it simply must be indestructible and thus immortal?
III Hume, Why Utility Pleases (=Enquiry concerning the Principles of Morals, Section V)
1 Almost everybody is at a loss how ethics might be founded – are we not forced to admit that, in the end of the day, we human beings act out of mere selfishness, and that all attempts to prove the existence of true morality reeks of covering up this true source?
Hume sets out to disprove this prejudice, and to develop a natural as well as rational account of the true nature of human morality.
He starts from the observation that everybody praises utility. And, of course, like everybody, we go after our own aims and we further own own interests. We appeove of things which further our own interests, but we also applaud actions which simply appeals to us, even if it does not further our own interests – simply because the action happened long, long ago. Utility pleases not just if it can be reduced to our own interests, but it pleases, because we like to see things done in an attractive way.
2 Utility is just a mean towards an end – and the end is: We feel pleasure in things developing in attractive ways: people handling their own affairs in good ways, people being of an attractive character (apart from any considerations of utility), people being agreeable in society, and people being useful to society.
In the end, we simply do not want to reduce ourselves to narrow egoists – we want to develop a wider view of things. We are taking the party of humanity and benevolence.
3 On the whole, we are not solitary creatures, and when we live and think too much in isolation, we will tend towards God and the Absolute (as Wittgenstein did), but when we live, feel and think in connection with other human beings, then we will be able to develop moral sentiments which will even grow into a stable standard for judging the actions of other human beings (and of ourselves, also): We will call „good“ those actions which give us a pleasing sentiment, and „bad“ those which repell us – all seen from a moral, human point of view.
4 Hume also offers a thorough refutation of the egoistical theory concerning human action (which he inherited from Joseph Butler).
IV Of Suicide
1 The essay discusses the notion that suicide might be a crime, and it stresses the idea that such a notion must rest on false reasoning. Therefore, this can be an example how philosophy can actually improve the situation of human beings: If any person should come into a situation bad enough to consider setting an end to life – this act will be horrible enough without the additional threat of committing a crime by ending one’s own life. Hume discusses three types of arguments, declaring that suicide is against our duty:
2 The duty towards God: As God has installed nature according to his laws, nothing that happens or is done by anybody can possibly break these laws of nature: Thus the notion of suicide being against „our duty towards God“ is incoherent.
3 The duty towards others: As a member of society we enter into contracts and conventions with other persons. But nothing can, in principle, force us to remain within these contracts, if we find that we can no longer be useful to society. It is a basic part of human freedom to retire from the fabric of society, and this cannot be regarded as a breach f duty.
4 The duty towards ourselves: If we can speak of any duty towards ourselves, then it can only be to arrange life as well as is possible for us. Once life has lost all pleasure and become a mere burden, we certainly should be free to relieve us from that burden.
5 If we treat the topic of suicide in a rational way, it could even be considered to be a kind of duty, to remove ourselves from society, if we note that all we can be to society is a burden. (Hume gives this as a positive afterthought, it is not part of his argument against the supposed criminality of suicide.)
|
