A few more thoughts on the last post concerning the role of ethics and charity, specifically on the supposed need for a metaphysical foundation for ethics. Let's consider those who act ethically for the sake of an ethical law or religious duty, and those who act ethically simply for the sake of the act itself. What is more admirable? A person who desires the well-being of his fellow man, and acts accordingly? Or a person who acts to benefit his fellow man for other reasons? More specifically: who is it that is best able to see the innate value of charity, and who is more likely to miss it? The answer seems obvious: those who act charitably without ethical compulsion are best able to understand the value of charity.
The difference here seems to be the starting point. In every day life, a person does not generally contemplate metaphysical justifications for helping his wife take out the trash, or helping an elderly person who is falling down. One simply wishes to help, to bring happiness. And this, really, is enough. Those who act and do not need justification are those who understand charity the best.
This is not to say that those who do argue that justification is needed for everyday charity are uncharitable. Their confusion probably is not even rooted in day-to-day events. The philosopher who argues God is necessary to know right from wrong probably does not really consider this as he helps a girl who has dropped her books, or a man whose car battery has died. He, too, acts charitably without philosophical mediation. The need for justification is therefore not an obstacle in everyday life, but an obscuring that is only manifest once one stands back from ones actions to understand them explicitly. The virtue of an action is not understood primarily in abstract ethical theory, but in practice.
The difference here seems to be the starting point. In every day life, a person does not generally contemplate metaphysical justifications for helping his wife take out the trash, or helping an elderly person who is falling down. One simply wishes to help, to bring happiness. And this, really, is enough. Those who act and do not need justification are those who understand charity the best.
This is not to say that those who do argue that justification is needed for everyday charity are uncharitable. Their confusion probably is not even rooted in day-to-day events. The philosopher who argues God is necessary to know right from wrong probably does not really consider this as he helps a girl who has dropped her books, or a man whose car battery has died. He, too, acts charitably without philosophical mediation. The need for justification is therefore not an obstacle in everyday life, but an obscuring that is only manifest once one stands back from ones actions to understand them explicitly. The virtue of an action is not understood primarily in abstract ethical theory, but in practice.
0 comments:
Post a Comment