Magius,
I don’t identify with any specific school or era in the history of philosophy. My closest identity at the moment might be with J.P. Sartre, but even here I’m probably comfortable with only 10% of his ideas. I don’t follow any “ism,” and am not an apologist for anyone’s thoughts other than my own. If I quote Wittgenstein for example, it’s not because I’m a Wittgensteinian, it’s because I was charmed by a very specific idea of his, or his eloquence in saying it. The entire literature of philosophy is my inheritance. If I read a disagreeable idea, rather than slamming the book closed, I try first turning the page. I’m no longer surprised when I pick up little jewels of wisdom from thinkers that I normally disagree with. For example, I recently quoted Nietzshe in a reply to you despite my general aversion to Nietzshe. Nietzshe had both good and bad specific ideas. He attempted, as we all do, to condense the totality of his ideas into a compact system of thought. The fact that I dislike his condensation of ideas does not alter the fact that some of his specific ideas were good. The traditional saying that, “No man is so ignorant than I might learn nothing from him,” is worth all the more when one considers that the great minds throughout history tended more towards brilliance rather than ignorance.
I should have spelled it out more clearly. I’m speaking of the well-known first Categorical Imperative.
Please take a moment to consider what I’m about to tell you. I’m unaware of a single posited ethical theory that can be applied in every possible moral situation. The freshman primers of ethical theory are filled with the standard objections to egoism, utilitarianism, relativism, etc… What aficionado of philosophy could not recite a litany of objections to the most popular theories? I’m tempted now to apply the conclusions of Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem to Ethics, but I think I’ll leave that for another thread. I will say that no ethical system yet posited appears to be complete, or free from inconsistencies.
Stand-by, because it’s time to trundle out the “big idea.”
Men cannot afford to wait until philosophy produces a flawless, polished and logically unassailable ethical system!
I had to make ethical decisions yesterday. I shall have to make more of them today. Must I abandon an otherwise perfectly useful system simply because someone has found it to be inconsistent under a unique and extreme condition? None of us live perfect lives. The best of us only ever manage to approximate “the good.” So why, by Jupiter, would we hold out for a perfect theory when at best, we could only imperfectly apply it?
I can honestly tell you Magius, hand on heart, that I find Kant’s maxim (that I universalize my behavior) to be the single best moral rule-of-thumb that I have ever found. I don’t think a week goes by that I don’t explicitly think of it. It is everything a rule-of-thumb should be. It’s more concise than the “Ten Commandments” and serves as an unambiguous moral compass when I would otherwise be searching for that elusive “Eleventh Commandment.” I’ve never consulted Kant’s Maxim and had it let me down. The day might come when it will let me down, but until that day does come, or until I find a better maxim, I shall continue to rely upon it.
Perhaps my engineering background makes me comfortable with quick approximations, back of the envelope calculations, and easily remembered rules-of-thumb; at least until I’ve the leisure to perform an in-depth analysis of the problem. I doubt you remember what a “slide-rule” was Magius. Engineers used to carry them around (even before my time) in order to make quick approximations, valid to three decimal places. Engineers used slide rules to help put men on the Moon. In most real-life engineering problems a three-place approximation is good enough. In fact, typical physical measurements are usually not much more accurate than one part in a thousand (at least without taking special precautions). Well, it’s the same with Kant’s Maxim. It’s as useful to me for moral approximations as a slide rule was to an engineer circa 1960. Pragmatic moral necessity requires that I act more like an engineer than a scientist.
Having said that, I enjoy the theoretical study of ethics a great deal. At the moment, I’m reading, Reasons and Persons, by Derek Parfit. I’m reading it alongside, Reading Parfit, edited by Jonathan Dancy. Magius, if you haven’t yet come across Parfit, judging from your posts I think you’d be as enthralled by him as I am. I suppose I could haul out another metaphor here. Theoretical ethics is to pure mathematics, what pragmatic (in-the-field) ethics is to applied mathematics. The study of pure mathematics trickles down to applied maths, but it also happens that an investigation in applied mathematics occasionally boosts the study of pure mathematics. Ditto for ethics. I think from time to time about applying what I read in theoretical ethics to real life, though up till now, I can’t honestly say that I’ve done so. Mostly it’s from a lack of need. Kant’s approximation has provided a sufficient number “decimal places” in the moral dilemmas thus far in my life.
The mathematician Karl Jacobi wrote, “Man muss immer generalisieren,” or “One must always generalize.” It’s important to generalize to the proper degree in ethics. If I live in a community I must think of myself as a member of that community. If the community is part of a nation, I must likewise think of the nation, and so on. Robinson Crusoe didn’t have to take into account the good of the citizens of Paris when he made a decision on his island. To do so would be to needlessly over-generalize. I don’t have to take into account the good of an alien culture on the far side of the Milky Way galaxy when I decide whether I should financially help support my local public radio station. A narrow view of selfishness is that I should listen to the music and let the other sucker’s pay for it. I only need to generalize my behavior to the level of my community to see that if everyone did this I’d have no Mozart to listen to on my radio. An enlightened self-interest says that I ought to contribute money to the station. Kant thought that ethical behavior is based upon duty. I say instead that it’s based upon wisdom, and moral wisdom is partly based on an enlightened self-interest. This is why I wrote that the bank robber was not acting selfishly enough. Marcus Aurelius noted as much in his Meditations:
“What’s good for the bee is good for the hive.”
Well, I’d go on but I’m afraid that Natsilicious is already cross with me. By the way, Salvador Dali once gave a speech that would likely make Natsilicious beam with pleasure. Dali came up to the podium and said,“I shall be so brief that I have already finished,” and then he sat down. Unfortunately, poor Natsilicious isn’t able to see this because he gave up after my first sentence. 
Michael
