OCR Text |
Show Blanshard Asks What is Good? Dr. Brand Blanshard, Sterling Professor Emeritus of Philosophy Philoso-phy at Yale University, last night delivered the last of the 1965-66 Great Issues in American Ameri-can Social Morality Forum lectures. lec-tures. His topic was "The Ethical Ethi-cal Basis of Politics." HE PREFACED his speecn by thanking his University audiences audi-ences for the reception he has received so far. "I , am far enough away from home," he quipped, "to be regarded as a minor prophet." Blanshard will complete his series of five lectures lec-tures with talks at 7 p.m. in the OSH Tanner Room tonight and tomorrow night. "Some would say that political philosophy is dead," Dr. Blanshard Blan-shard began. "Perhaps this is because politics has become too serious to be left to the philosophers. phil-osophers. At any rate, neither of the two dominant modern philosophical philo-sophical schools existentialist and analytic has anything constructive to say about politics." poli-tics." "THIS IS especially unfortunate," unfortun-ate," he continued, "because we have many problems today whose resolution will need the use of relevant philosophical 'first principles.'." The first division di-vision of his talk was the contention con-tention that "politics even when broadly defined as all governmental action is obviously ob-viously ethics, whether civil rights, Medicare, or pornography control." What, then, is ethics? "An ethical question," Blanshard explained, ex-plained, "is any question whose resolution depends upon a choice between values, and any question ques-tion becomes an ethical question ques-tion when the element of values enters in. Wrong, in any ethical system, is the choice of lower values over higher." HE THEN cautioned his audience au-dience that he was not attempting attempt-ing to equate political science with ethics, but rather political theory. While political science is a study of facts, political theory deals with values, e.g., "what are the rights of governments?" But since theory influences practice, prac-tice, and practice is resolved into theory, both ultimately end in ethics. What, then, Professor Blanshard Blan-shard asked as he moved into the second division of his talk, is the ethical basis of politics? "First we must deal with two popular but mistaken and dangerous dan-gerous ethical theories that make political ethics logically impossible." impos-sible." The first he dealt with was the anthropological viewpoint view-point that political and social mores can make anything right and that moral standards are cultural relatives. This idea is useless when cultures come into conflict, as they so often do. Since each society has its own mores, "Supra-cultural principles of the right" are impossible and a "theoretical bankruptcy" occurs. oc-curs. THE SECOND theory is that of emotivism, put forth by the positivists. They contend that statements of principle are merely mere-ly expressions of will and of attitude, without basis jn rationality ra-tionality and hence not susceptible suscep-tible to rational appraisal. This "boo-hurrah" doctrine, adopted by the analytic school and the linguistic animists, recognizes semantics, psychology, and sociology so-ciology as useful disciplines, but not ethics. "In contrast, I hold that my theory of political ethics has been arrived at by thought," continued con-tinued Blanshard, personalizing his talk at last. "My theory is best considered by approaching (Continued on Page 6)"" i Blanshard Speaks on lf r ' i ' ; ' 1 : ' ' ; 1 1 ' j ! " i I t ( I I , -t , ' 1 I 1 . ' . J , . i , j vs. . I j i L J V- - : . ; . jj'M Dr. Blanshard, discussing the "Ethical Basis of Politics," belittled be-littled the dominate existential and analytical schools of (Continued from Page 1) il from the standpoint of the two questions that have always puzzled ethicians: (1) what is right; and (2) what is good?" THE ANSWERS to the "what is right" question have, historically, historic-ally, come from two philosophical philosophi-cal schools: the legalists, including in-cluding the Pharisees, the Stoics, and Emmanuel Kant (each of these with a separate standard of law) and the teleologists, including in-cluding Socrates, the Epicureans, Mill, Bentham, and Moore. The difficulty with the traditional teleological argument of "the greatest good for the greatest number" is the existence of ethical ethi-cal wrongs which give the wrong-doer great pleasure and work little harm to those to whom the wrong is done, e.g., shoplifting a single cheap item from a large, well-heeled department de-partment store. The difficulty with the "categorical imperative" of Kant, which would take care of the foregoing case very nicely, nice-ly, is that many acts wholly un-reprehensible un-reprehensible on an individual basis, such as becoming a philosopher phil-osopher rather than entering a more materially-productive field, would result in chaos if carried out on a large scale. The way out of this apparent dilemma, according to Dr. Blanshard. Blan-shard. is the introduction of the j pattern of action concept. No act I is culturally isolated; it has values inherent in it which are also inherent in other acts. 'Shoplifting for instance, implies im-plies deception, treachery, and disregard for the rights of others," oth-ers," as do most other forms of criminal behavior. "Choose, then, the alternative act the pattern of action of which would produce pro-duce the greatest good for the greatest number." MOVING on to the second question, "what is good," Blanshard Blan-shard first supplied what he called his "general consideration": considera-tion": "Whatever is intrinsically good is experienced, and nothing can be good without being experienced." ex-perienced." The two "special considerations" under the general gener-al one were (1) that "the good" must satisfy a human drive, need, appetite (although all appetites ap-petites are by no means good) and (2) that the good must give pleasure. These considerations, Blanshard mentioned, lend credence cre-dence to the idea that the development devel-opment and enjoyment of one's abilities is good. The third division of Blan-shard's Blan-shard's talk provided the answer an-swer to his questions posed in his title: "What, is the ethical basis of politics? What are the political consequences of adopting adopt-ing this ethical theory? Why does the state and the individual I have certain rights and corres- Pending duti j Dr- B'anshard ?nswer b.:;, fication of his- the fact tha: eniymeans ; that we al, . out. j Thus' every . Blanshard exp t0 an ethical ji f ment of thefl every ciUzen.um.i by how well it act". ' The view of nj ."1 as means to an eth.-'' 1 Pens( with seve-1 tneories, including t al rights incorp0;X" f declaration 0t h'-' Governments are rl amon8 men l0 f. (J nghts but -the eration." The so-a;.' r'ghcs are, in f ion. merely means io" irg of the fullcapii individual citizen ani; lore not absolute. " "The duty of the j: . j"1 then, is not to give ti; ''al but to hinder the L to it," Dr. Blansharii-.RW the debate between b;.; als and modern & he contended, is c: "vital spark which ir... full realization of in:. capacities is built c dvidual or bred into:: vironment." The rationalist tL Blanshard concluded, : rationality which t men to reach the he. abilities is, or cans, to all men. "But will::: this rationality and.- . freedom reasonably!: hope of the rationa'Jr tics." F |