Given her schema of natural normativity, Foot goes on discuss what it is that makes a person good, the role of happiness in human goodness and then the threat of immoralism posed by the likes of Nietzche. As for what makes a person good, Foot discusses social living for human beings and the sorts of traits the possession of which makes one better suited for such a life. This discussion is very similar in many ways to the one she has about plants and animals which she uses to derive her concept of "natural norms". Thus, the same problems remain for me. I can see quite clearly how, given the way a wolf lives, sharp teeth, being fast, having a keen sense of smell, etc. are good for the wolf and that, as a result, given the way a wolf lives, one that has all these traits is better than one that does not. Thus, I understand that given the things a wolf tries to do traits such as these are good, but what I do not see is how the "things a wolf tries to do" can be characterized as good. Why is it that a wolf that tries to do other things than the norm is worse than the others? One can criticize a renegade wolf on the wolf-norms criteria, but that does not show that the wolf is good or bad but rather only that it is good or bad given a certain criteria. Just because wolves have certain behavioral regularities does not show that these regularities are good nor does that fact that certain traits are good for these regularities show that the traits are good. This is, I think, the big problem in Foot's book and I do not think that it is answered.
I thought that her discussions of happiness and immoralism were interesting. As for what she said about happiness, that it was not just a state of mind (such as contentment) is something that I can agree with. She also discussed the example of Wittgenstein on his deathbed claiming to have had a wonderful life to support the idea that happiness is not a necessary component of a good life. Finally she tentatively concludes that true happiness is the sort of thing that Aristotle imagined it to be: virtuous behavior accompanied by good fortune. She also seemed to want to say at times that part happiness consisted in enjoying that which is good, but she never really flat out said it which was probably a wise decision because such a conception is unlikely true (Taylor had a great discussion on this issue which I think we talked about earlier). With regard to Nietzche, immoralism and his revaluation of values she came to the conclusion that Nietzche's revaluation could not be right because it does not fit with the human form of life and thus that it is not valid for us. This of course relies heavily on the acceptance of natural normativity and what follows from it and thus I am not so sure what to say about it. I think there are reasons for rejecting Nietzche's ideas but that they are quite different from the ones Foot provides.
I get the sense that you do not think that I am giving Foot a fair shake and maybe I am not. It just seems to me as though the whole book is based on her conception of natural normativity and yet I think that this conception is mistaken. At any rate, I suppose that we can talk more about this on Tuesday.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Actually, I think I pretty much agree with your criticisms of Foot. She seems to think that since things come in 'kinds' each will have specific 'goods' involved in just what it IS. So a good oak has deep, sturdy roots. On her side, we do say this sort of thing I guess. But on your side, what is so good about a 'good' oak? Suppose due to climate change oaks with shallow, flimsy roots started to survive longer and reproduce more effectively. So they eventually replaced the sort of oak that had deep sturdy roots. So what? Would the new oaks be 'bad' oaks?
And for people, lots of genuinely human traits seem either morally neutral or even bad. Think of musical or athletic ability. These are human 'excellences' but would she say that someone who doesn't have them is not a 'good' person? For that matter, what of the ability to walk or speak? Are disabled people not 'good' people? And what of the ability to, say, cheat on an exam. That is a genuine human ability, only humans can do it. So is someone a better person if she can do this better?
Post a Comment