Agreement on Duties, Not First Principles
Can people who disagree about the foundations of morality still work together on what to do? The opening addresses say they can, if they stop trying to settle the foundations first.
Sidgwick had watched the Metaphysical Society's debates leave every member where he began, and he warned the Cambridge Ethical Society against copying it. Its aim, in Aristotle's phrase, was not knowledge but action, so it should leave the highest good alone and build on the broad agreement that already existed about particular duties. That agreement deserves respect: rules that grew up through social evolution should be handled delicately, and a refined sense of justice honours tacit understandings as well as written contracts.
- practical ethics
- moral philosophy
- moral knowledge
- moral progress
- ethics
- morality
- practical reasoning
- justice
Enter a dialogue
- Addressing a new ethical society, you advise it to stop seeking agreement on first principles. What can such a society still achieve?
- Years of debate in the Metaphysical Society left every member where he started. What lesson do you draw from that for people who want to improve conduct?
- Inherited moral rules can look arbitrary to a reflective mind. Why do you ask reformers to handle them respectfully rather than rebel against them?
- Someone never signed anything, yet others relied on what they tacitly understood. Why does a refined sense of justice still hold them to it?
- The aim of an ethical society, you say with Aristotle, is not knowledge but action. Does that leave any room for argument at its meetings?