SHOW NOT TO SOLVE ETHICAL PROBLEMS
HILLARY PUTNAM
|
From Hilary Putnam, Realism With a Human
Face, |
Hilary Putnam, one of the most important
American philosophers of the Post-World War
II generation, has also been one of the most
prolific. His corpus includes five volumes
of collected works, seven books, and over
200 articles, on an astonishing variety of
topics ranging over philosophy of science,
philosophy of language, philosophy of mind,
philosophy of logic and mathematics, metaphysics,
ethics, and politics. In many of these areas,
he has proved to be not only an active participant,
but a foundational thinker.
How Not to Solve Ethical Problems Hilary
Putnam
... We should reflect on principles-not only
our own, but those of the persons with whom
we disagree. But the way not to solve an
ethical problem is to find a nice sweeping
principle that "proves too much,"
and to accuse those who refuse to "buy"
one's absolute principle of immorality. The
very words solution and problem may be leading
us astray-ethical "problems" are
not like scientific problems, and they do
not often have "solutions" in the
sense that scientific problems do. The extreme
deductivism of much contemporary analytic
philosophy may reflect the grip of the problem/solution
metaphor. I suggest that our thought might
be better guided by a different metaphor-a
metaphor from the law, instead of a metaphor
from science-the metaphor of adjudication.
I shall give an example-one that is bound
to be controversial. (But it is part of the
metaphor of adjudication that a good example
must be controversial) My favorite example
of a wise adjudication of a difficult dispute
is the Supreme Court's decision on abortion.
Since I regard it as wise, I am obviously
not a partisan of one of the strong views
we have all heard in the dispute-we may have
souls, but they are not invisible objects
which join our cells at the moment of conception
(we become ensouled, rather than being souls-plus-bodies);
and we may have rights over our own bodies,
but they do not extend to an absolute privilege.
In calling the Supreme Court decision "wise,"
I am not saying that it is the "last
word" on the abortion issue. If it were
the last word, it would be a solution and
not an adjudication. What I say is that reasonable
men and women should agree that it would
have been decidedly unwise for the Court
either to (1) read Roman Catholic theology
into the Constitution; or (2) grant that
persons have the right to receive and perform
abortions even in the ninth month of pregnancy.
That we cannot "solve" the abortion
problem should not be surprising. The issues
most discussed in connection with the problem,
the issue of when personhood begins and the
issue of the extent of rights to privacy
as they affect the termination of one's own
pregnancy, are ones we cannot see to the
bottom of. We do not have clear criteria
of personhood; and this is connected with
our lack of even the faintest shadow of a
genuine theory of such things as intentionality
and value. ... The Supreme Court decision
- that a first-trimester fetus does not have
legal protection; that abortion of a second-trimester
fetus is something to be regulated, primarily
in the interest of the mother's health, though
not forbidden; and that a third- trimester
fetus must be amply legally protected-is
not a "theory," but a reasonable
stance in the absence of a theory. Even if
we could settle the issue of "when one
becomes a person," there are other issues
connected with when a person's life may be
taken (or allowed to be lost) which are also
controversial.... We need adjudications precisely
in cases such as this-cases in which we cannot
find a noncontroversial principle or application
of a principle which settles what we should
do.
A very different metaphor may be of help
here-the metaphor of reading. Consider the
following two interpretations of Hamlet (they
are not meant to be exhaustive): (1) an interpretation-an
unsophisticated reader might give this-in
which Hamlet's "uncertainty" is
merely epistemic, merely a belief that there
is not enough evidence on which to act against
the King, and on which Hamlet feigns madness
merely to buy time to find out what the facts
are; (2) an interpretation in which Hamlet's
hesitation reveals a "conflict."
One need not go as far in this direction
as to "buy" a psychoanalytic interpretation
of the play to contrast Hamlet's ability
to act decisively when he brings about the
deaths of Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern, or
when he struggles with pirates, with his
inability to act in the case of greatest
concern to him; nor is it implausible that
the phenomenon of finding oneself to be unable
to act (for reasons one cannot understand)
would be one with which a dramatic genius
would be acquainted, without having read
Freud, and would find rending, and thus of
great potential interest. A sensitive reader
will see that the second interpretation is
better than the first. (A still better reading
might include both perspectives.) Yet very
few readers today think there is such a thing
as the "final" interpretation of
Hamlet, the one that contains all the perspectives
on the play in all its dimensions. We do
think that there are such things as better
and worse interpretations-otherwise what
is the point of discussing at all? What we
have given up is the belief that the existence
of better and worse interpretations commits
us to the existence of an "absolute
perspective" on the work of art.
Seeing that an adjudication of an ethical
dispute is reasonable (at a given time, for
a given purpose, for a given group of people)
and that another is unreasonable is like
seeing that one reading is better than another.
We are not committed to the existence of
an unimaginable "absolute perspective"
in ethics, an ethical theory that contains
and reconcile all the possible perspectives
on ethical problems in all their dimensions;
we are committed to the idea of "better
and worse opinions." Reading great works
of art and reading life are different but
not unrelated activities.
A common feature of both metaphors - the
metaphor of adjudication and the metaphor
of reading - is openness or nonfinality.
Accepting the Supreme Court's adjudication
of the abortion issue, its "reading"
of the situation, is accepting something
that is by its very nature provisional-not
in the sense that there must be a better
perspective a "true" reading (or
a truer reading) which we will someday get
to if we are lucky, but in the sense that
(for all we know) there may be some things
which were once problematic are now issues
for condemnation or approbation and not adjudication.
Human slavery is no longer problematic; it
is just plain wrong. Racism and male chauvinism
are simply wrong. Someday there may be a
better perspective on the abortion issue-things
may come into better focus. Both metaphors
leave this open.
The second metaphor-the metaphor of reading-also
has a place for the special role of philosophical
imagination. New perspectives on moral issues,
new readings of moral situations, have often
come from philosophy. One thinks of the role
that Locke's combination of moral vision
and argument played in defeating the doctrine
of the Divine Right of Kings, or of the origin
of the great idea of the French revolution-the
Rights of Man-in the writing of the philosophies.
Like the readings of a literary text, philosophical
perspectives may be rich or impoverished,
sophisticated or naive, broad or one-sided,
inspired or pedestrian, reasonable or perverse
(and if the latter, brilliantly perverse
or merely perverse). Like the readings of
a great novel, philosophical perspectives
never succeed in capturing their "text"
in all its dimensions; and (as the deconstructionists
claim is the case with literary works) they
are always to some extent "subverted"
by the very "text" they are reading,
defeated by the complexity of life itself.
If the essay thus far were to be reviewed
in a professional journal, I can predict
exactly what the reviewer would say. He would
mention my metaphors, and then say, "But
the author himself admits that all this is
just metaphor. Does he believe that there
are objective ethical facts or doesn't he?
And if he does, what account does he have
of their nature?"
The question assumes what is not the case-that
there is a workable philosophical notion
of an "objective fact." In my recent
series of books, I argue that the philosophical
subjective/objective distinction is today
in total collapse. Philosophy has tried to
draw this distinction in two quite different
ways: ontologically, by making an inventory
of the Furniture of the Universe, and banishing
from the realm of the "objective"
whatever cannot be reduced to what the philosopher
takes to be the basic building blocks of
Reality
(material objects and sense data being the
two favorite candidates in recent philosophy);
epistemologically, by making an inventory
of the possible modes of verification, and
banishing from the realm of the "objective"
whatever cannot be "verified" by
what the philosopher takes to be the "scientific"
means of verification. The ontological approach
has ended up in a precritical materialism
which has no account of such epistemological
properties as confirmation, of such semantic
relations as synonymy and paraphrase, of
such intentional relations as reference,
or even of its own favorite notions of explanation
and causation, while the epistemological
approach is immediately self-refuting: the
criteria of "objectivity" proposed
by the epistemologists are self-violating.
It is not that I have better criteria of
objectivity and subjectivity to offer, let
me add: it is the whole conception of philosophy
as a Master Science, a discipline which surveys
the special activities of natural science,
law, literature, morality, and so forth,
and explains them all in terms of a privileged
ontology or epistemology, that has proved
to be an empty dream. The "scientific
realists" are right about this much:
if there were such a discipline, it would
be natural science itself and not philosophy.
The days when philosophy had a right to such
grand pretensions are long past. But they
are wrong in thinking that natural science
can play this role. In this epoch, at least,
we are left without a Master Science.
In addition to the philosophical distinction,
there is an "ordinary" or vernacular
distinction between objective and subjective.
In the vernacular, to call something "objective"
is to say that it is uncontroversial, or
to suggest that it would be if folks weren't
so dumb; while to call something "subjective"
is to dismiss it as mere affect. In these
terms, as they stand when they are not infected
(as they often are) by the projects of the
ontologists and the epistemologists, most
of the facts that are important for our lives,
including most of the important ethical facts,
are neither "objective" nor "subjective."
They are facts concerning which there are
relative truths even if we don't know what
an "absolute" truth would be; and
among these relative truths there are, as
has been said, better and worse.
... To adjudicate ethical problems successfully,
as opposed to "solving" them, it
is necessary that the members of the society
have a sense of community. A compromise that
cannot pretend to be the last word on an
ethical question, that cannot pretend to
derive from binding principles in an unmistakably
constraining way, can only derive its force
from a shared sense of what is and is not
reasonable, from people's loyalties to one
another, and a commitment to "muddling
through" together. When the sense of
community is absent or weak, when individuals
feel contempt or resentment for one another,
when the attitude becomes that any consensus
that isn't the one an individual would have
chosen himself isn't binding on him, then
fantasy and desperation have free reign.
|