Mary Midgley: Trying out One's New Sword

 

Name of the Book: Contemporary Moral Problems

Library Reference: N/A

Amazon Link: 

 

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=

contemporary+moral+problems&x=0&y=0

 

Quote:

"Ideals like dicipline and devotion will not move anybody unless he himself accepts them."

 

Learning Expectations:

 

1. To know what does it mean "trying out One's New Sword"
2. To know what does this issue is all about?
3. To know how this issue does connects with the issue of judgment.
4. To know what is Moral Isolationism.
5. To know and understand this issue.

 

Review:

 

Moral Isolationism the view of anthropologist and others that cannot criticize cultures we do not understand. She argues that moral isolationism is essentially a doctrine of immoralist because it forbids any moral reasoning. Furthermore, it falsely assumes that cultures are separate and unmixed, whereas most cultures are in fact formed of many influences.

     To respect someone, we have to know enough about him and make favorable judgment however general an tentative. To try out one’s new sword on a chance wayfarer (the word is tsujigiri literally “crossroads-cut) A samurai sword had to be tried because if it was to work properly, it had to slice through someone at a single blow, from the shoulder to the opposite flank. Other wise the warrior bungled his stroke. This could endure his honour offend his ancestors and even let down his emperor. So tests were needed and wayfarers had to be expended. We must ask first: does the isolating barrier work both ways? Are people in other cultures equally unable to criticize us? And the next question is this: does the isolating barrier between cultures block praise as well as blame? If I want to say that the samurai culture has many virtues, or to praise the South Americans Indians, am I prevented from doing that my outside status? To bring us to our third questions: what is involved in judging? Judging simply means forming opinions and expressing it if it is called for. Moral isolationism forbids us to form any opinions on these matters. Its ground for doing so is that we don’t understand them.  

 

Learning’s/Insights:

 

• "Judging simply means forming an opinion, expressing it if it is called for"
• "Moral Isolationism forbids us to from any opinions on these matters. it is a ground for doing so is that we don't understand them."
• "The power of judgment is in fact not a luxury not perverse indulgence of the self righteous."
• "Our involvement from moral isolationism does not flow from apathy but from a rather acute concern about human hypocrisy and other forms of wickedness.”

•  

Integrative Questions:

 

1. What is Moral Isolationism in layman's term?
2. What is Judgement/Judging?
3. What are the arguments rises on this issues "trying out one's new sword"?
4. How was the issue of judging and judgement related to our environment today?
5. How are we going to apply issues like moral isolationism to our lives? 

 

Review Question 

 

1. What is “moral isolationism”?

 

          Moral Isolationism the view of anthropologist and others that cannot criticize cultures we do not           understand. She argues that moral isolationism is essentially a doctrine of immoralism because it           forbids any moral reasoning. Furthermore, it falsely assumes that cultures are separate and           unmixed, whereas most cultures are in fact formed of many influences. 

 

2. Explain the Japanese custom of tsujigiri. What question does Midgley ask about this custom?

 

       To respect someone, we have to know enough about him and make favorable judgment however general an tentative. To try out one’s new sword on a chance wayfarer (the word is tsujigiri literally “crossroads-cut) A samurai sword had to be tried because if it was to work properly, it had to slice through someone at a single blow, from the shoulder to the opposite flank. Other wise the warrior bungled his stroke. This could endure his honour offend his ancestors and even let down his emperor. So tests were needed and wayfarers had to be expended. We must ask first: does the isolating barrier work both ways? Are people in other cultures equally unable to criticize us? And the next question is this: does the isolating barrier between cultures block praise as well as blame? If I want to say that the samurai culture has many virtues, or to praise the South Americans Indians, am I prevented from doing that my outside status? To bring us to our third questions: what is involved in judging? Judging simply means forming opinions and expressing it if it is called for. Moral isolationism forbids us to form any opinions on these matters. Its ground for doing so is that we don’t understand them. 

 

3. What is wrong with moral isolationism according to Midgley?

 

          Moral isolationism would lay down a general ban on moral reasoning. The power of the moral judgment is in fact not luxury not perverse indulgence of the self righteous. It is a necessarily When we judge something to be bad or good than something else, we are taking it as an example to aim at or void. Our involvement of moral isolationism does not flow from a path but from rather acute concern about human hypocrisy and other forms of wickedness. We think tat doing this thing is actually wrong. But this is itself a moral judgment. We could not condemn and insolence if we thought that all pour condemnations was just a trivial local quirk of our own culture. We could still less do it if we tried to stop judging altogether. 

 

4. What does Midgley think is basis for criticizing other cultures?

 

     Ideals like discipline and devotion will not move anybody unless he himself accepts them. If we accept something as a serious moral truths about one culture we can’t refuse to apply it in however different an outward form to other cultures as well, wherever circumstances admit it. If we refuse to do this, we just are not taking the other cultures seriously. What am pointing out simply that it can only work if we believe that consent can make such transaction respectable and this is a thoroughly modern and western idea.

 

 

Discussion Questions:

 

1. Midgley says that Nietzsche is an immoralist. Is that an accurate and fair assessment of Nietzsche? Why or why not?

 

For me it’s a no because they have both different views and believes to one another. What they can do is to respect each opinions or each views.

 

 

2. Do you agree with Midgley’s claim that the idea of separate and unmixed cultures is unreal? Explain your answer.

 

For me it’s a no because no whether you are in your own culture and you know it doesn’t necessarily mean that it is mix or un real because what culture you know and you have will always be real and unmixed because you know how to deal with it and you know why is it like that.