4/13/2014 Trying Out One's New Sword by Midgley TRYING OUT ONE'S NEW SWORD By Mary Midgley Overview: Midgley criticizes 'moral isolationists' who disapprove of those who morally judge other culture. She notes that moral isolationists disapprove less when someone from another culture passes moral judgment on our culture. Also, moral isolationists are inconsistent: they do not oppose praising an exotic culture. Moral judgment, Midgley says, is a human necessity. Why ban it interculturally? She points out that such a ban would not permit us to express disapproval of the samurai custom of trying out a new sword by cleanly slicing an innocent passerby in two. Moral Isolationism­ The belief that world is divided into separate societies which are sealed within themselves and have their own thought­system. Out of respect and tolerance, one must not pass judgments about another culture because one cannot understand any other culture than one's own and thus, can only pass judgment about one's own culture. Origin of moral isolationism­ It is possible that as Midgley remarks towards the end of the article, that moral isolationism arose out of the inability to completely understand the practices of remote cultures/tribes which anthropologists went to study. Midgley says that emphasis on their remoteness/strangeness/independence of our cultural tradition led to the idea of moral isolationism where we started believing that each culture was sealed into its own thought system. (a) Challenging the basis of moral isolationism: Midgley says that the position of moral isolationism is practiced not out of respect for other culture. Why not? Because I cannot respect something which is unintelligible to me. To respect something or someone, I have to know enough about it to make a favorable or unfavorable judgment. (b) Questioning one's own and others' customs: Consider the samurai custom of 'to try out one's new sword on a chance warfarer' (the word used is tsujigiri, which means 'crossroads­cut'). In this custom, to ensure that a sword was working properly, the samurai was to slice a random passer­by from the shoulder to opposite flank. If he did not do this test, then during the war, the samurai could be wrongly perform the stroke. This would 'injure his honor, offend his ancestors and even let down his emperor'. Thus, to ensure that these did not happen, he had to test his sword, at the stake of an innocent person (who was not a Samurai). This is analogous to the use of experimental subjects by scientists. If we follow moral isolationism, then we are not in a position to judge this custom. But is it not the case that others do and have judged our culture positively and negatively comfortably? Does this not prove that we have the capacity to do it and thus, to say that we cannot understand their system and thus, must refrain from questioning it is absurd? If I can understand my own culture and criticize it as well as understand another culture, why should I be stopped from passing a judgment about the latter? Once we understand something, we do have a judgment about it. To say that I would not say what I judge is simply to suppress the judgment and not to not judge. (c) We do and can understand other cultures. Even though it takes different amount of time, we can understand the other culture. That is what anthropologists have been doing for ages. Recording their activity and trying to understand why they do what they do. Of course, there can be crude understanding, in the sense that one ca completely discard all religions which are not Christian. But we do not consider this understanding, but only biased opinion. Once appropriate understanding of a culture has arisen, there is nothing which should stop us from being able to evaluate the culture. (d) Praising other culture's: Why is it that we are not stopped from praising other cultures? Because praising is also a form of approval of the system, which is a judgment arising out of understanding. If one can praise a system, s/he should also be allowed to crticize it. A praise without prior critical evaluation is definitely only empty flattery. (e) Inability to judge own culture: file:///home/sahana/Documents/Documents/Philo/MA/M%20A/PART%202/PHIL%20203%20METAETHICS/Meta-Ethics%20Notes/part%… 1/3 4/13/2014 Trying Out One's New Sword by Midgley If we cannot judge other cultures, what makes us eligible to judge our own? There are many things within our culture which we do not find intelligible but does this mean that we do not evaluate or understand them at all and leave them? Of course not. Moreover, understanding other cultures allows us to compare our own culture and provide an informed judgment about our own culture. (f) Slippery slope: No moral reasoning If moral isolationism has to be followed, then all form of moral reasoning will have to be banned. This is the motto of immoralism and it is logically untenable. Midgley says that immoralists like Nietzsche can say what they say because there is something which they can speak against. If there was no morality, there would be no immoralism. # Criticism­ Midgley's arugment is absurd. Why? What is said by immoralists­ that morality is a mental construction­ would be valid regardless of the existence or non­existence of any moral system. Midgley adds that moral judgment is a necessity. It is not something we can choose not to do. # Criticism­ It is not true that moral judgment is a necessity. The very presence of ideas like immoralism or emotivism which talk about the lack of absolute moral values/moral judgments as being simply expressions of emotions undercut the very idea of there being any necessity of morally evaluating an empirical fact. If we did not morally judge, then we cannot judge our own actions also or make any change in our policies by referring ot other systems. (g) No moral reasoning ­­> No use for human brain Midgley says that the main evolutionary asset we have, our brain would have very little use if it did not do moral evaluation. # Criticism­ At no level can it be scientifically proven that the brain was created for moral judgment. If it had been, if it was innate to human beings to morally judge (morality would be innate, not acquired), then we would not have practice of theories like moral nihilism and emotivism. (h) Moral isolationism is based on hypocrisy and other forms of wickedness. We think that if someone criticizes other cultures, it is wrong. But saying that such an act is wrong is in itself a moral judgment. (i) Against moral scepticism: Midgley says that moral skepticism only leasd to inaction and to losing of interest in moral questions. These concern our societies the most. She says that we should stay away from doing this. #Criticism­ Midgley is only afraid of the idea that there is no right or wrong. Morality is a construction of the human mind. Any form of morality is a power play. Any moral issue is only an understanding of empirical facts with no need for moral value or moral reprimanding. (j) Ability of other cultures to explain thier customs­ If I criticize the Samurai culture, then they will try to justify their custom. The act of trying to make me understand the culture and to explain it themselves shows that he believes that I can understand it and possibly expects that my attitude towards his custom would turn favorable. If I have to either turn in favor or not in favor of his system, I need to use a thought system different from his. The Japanese would have to make me accept discipline and devotion as values. If he does succeed in this, then I would have to evalute my own culture again (where these values are not that popular currently). If I do begin to accept these as values, I would have to apply them in my culture as well. For instance, when the Samurai says that the by­ passer also is in the arrangement and doesn't mind being bisected, then we could question it by asking if file:///home/sahana/Documents/Documents/Philo/MA/M%20A/PART%202/PHIL%20203%20METAETHICS/Meta-Ethics%20Notes/part%… 2/3 4/13/2014 Trying Out One's New Sword by Midgley such a consent is respectable. But 'consent' is a western import. We could go on to ask for evidence for such a consent. This is also a western idea. We do understand that even though it is western, the other culture can understand it and pass a judgment about it too. We can understand the other culture more and more in this way by a series of questioning and responses. The only reason we do not do this is because of laziness, prejudice or ignorance. (h) Empirical evidence against moral isolationism: If we were really sealed units with no points of intersection, then most cultures won't have been formed. Why not? Because most cultures are a mix of different influences­ Roman, Japanese, American, Greek, Jewish and so on. The idea of moral isolationism is not real. When being formed, the cultures have to understand new customs and assimilate them into their culture slowly. (i) Empirical reality: Migdley says at the end of the article that survival would be hard if we refused to genuinely understand each other's culture and that 'there is only one world and we all have to live in it'. file:///home/sahana/Documents/Documents/Philo/MA/M%20A/PART%202/PHIL%20203%20METAETHICS/Meta-Ethics%20Notes/part%… 3/3