Postmodernism-Pragmatism/Dewey
- What is “Enlightenment rationality” and how do Postmodern philosophers tend to reject it?
Enlightenment rationality is premised on the existence of some sort of absolute moral truth, be it objective, subjective, linguistic, scientific (to name a few traits) accessed and understood via reason. Postmodern philosophers, conversely, tend not to buy into any sort of absolute ethical system, meaning of terms, imperatives, values, methods, and so on. Therefore, Postmodern philosophers reject Enlightenment rationality as they deny the ability of reason to find any absolute, eternal, and transcendent moral maxims, oughts/ought-nots, or meanings for ethical terms.
-
- What is Pragmatism and what traits of it are Postmodern?
Pragmatism is an American philosophical movement that asserts how one should or should not act, what is right or wrong, is based on what is practical for acting/judging in a given situation, not on some absolute idea of morality. Pragmatism is Postmodern as a result of the aforementioned emphasis on the practical, which also makes it a form of relativism (for every situation is different, so there is no way to determine what is the most practical way to act beyond a single event). It is also Postmodern because moral disagreements are in fact considered good, as they allow one to better assess a given situation via what turns out to be the right action/judgment via a debate.
- What does the term “Primacy of Habits” mean, and how might this notion support the claim that Pragmatism is “relative without being relativistic”?
Primacy of Habits means that, since “our practices are our habits” (Sullivan and Pecorino 61), habits are of utmost importance as they tell us what tends to work in given situations, which serve to inform (but not determine) what we should do in a given situation. These habits, if they tend to not produce desired results in a given situation—or in many situations—also allow us to realize the need to change habits in relation to the context, purpose, and ability to manifest a desired result within a situation at hand. So, since these habits provide guidance of what constitutes a moral action for a given circumstance, Pragmatism is not relativistic; but what these habits tell us about what one ought or ought not to do depend upon the situation and are given to subsequent revision.
- What issue does Dewey have with the “division of ends into intrinsic and instrumental” via the “fixed values” of the established tradition?
This division creates a duality that renders that which is instrumental as outside of the moral realm, which he suggests is a reason for an overly materialistic and “brutal” economic situation. In turn this makes the intrinsic powerless and useless, as it has no bearing upon the material conditions in which people (practically) live. The “fixed” nature of this division via the moral tradition means that this duality can never be resolved into one complete and useful moral system.
- Why does Dewey believe his conception of Pragmatism, that which focuses on a given “moral situation,” offers a better way to understand and manifest morality than traditional ethical theories, including utilitarianism?
The focus on a moral situation in fact activates reason, whereas traditional ethical theories remain static due to the fixed values they propose, regardless of the situation. So, Pragmatism, in contrast to traditional ethical theories that alleged that reason is paramount in moral determination and action, but in reality did not actually work in that way due to their fixed nature, requires one to think about and judge a situation before acting upon it, to consider different moral views and determinations via these views, and to act with more sympathy by way of a more rigorous and unbiased moral process.
Existentialism/Sartre
- What does the Existentialist claim that “existence precedes essence” mean and why does it assert a radical break from traditional ethical theory?
“Existence precedes essence” means that people construct what they essentially are (which makes Existentialism a Postmodern moral theory). This is a break from traditional ethical theories because they asserted some sort of fixed and absolute essence of human being, located in human nature, via reason, or to be gleaned via physical nature, which in turn suggested some fixed and absolute morality that exists as part or result of such essence. Existentialism, on the other hand, claims that morality, like the essence of human being, is created by a being that first must exist.
- How does the Existential conception of freedom differ from traditional forms of ethical theory, and what are some of the consequences of such differentiation?
The Existential conception of freedom differs from traditional forms of ethical theory in that it is relativistic and does not assert any sort of fixed values and moral codes issued via an essential quality of human being, which means that people entirely create morality; in fact, Existentialists do not believe any sort of morality exists prior to human conception of it. The consequence is that there are no clear ends to achieve via ethics aside from the manifestation and protection of freedom and for taking absolute responsibility for one’s actions derived from such freedom, and even these mandates vary from person to person and culture to culture. In turn, people are entirely responsible for the execution and consequences of their actions, as there is no God, Categorical Imperative, or Greatest Happiness Principle, for example, on which to absolve the reasons for and consequences of action and judgment.
- What does Sartre mean by “subjectivism,” and why does it speak to the dignity of human beings?
Subjectivism for Sartre means that all epistemology (inquiries regarding what constitutes knowledge) starts with self-consciousness, which is to say with the thinking of/as an individual, not some material and empirical starting point. So, the dignity of humans is manifest via their subjective agency (freedom).
-
- How does the analogy of the painter and the painting she or he creates support subjectivism as the basis of moral discourse and action?
The example of the painter and the painting supports subjectivism as the basis for morality because there is no essence to a painting—there is no painting at all—prior to the painter’s conception of what it is to be and the result of his or her painting. The painting’s existence and worth are not predetermined, but instead manifest via the painter’s existence and subsequent sense of self and art (existence before essence). Therefore, the painter’s dignity lies in his or her freedom to subjectively conceive of and produce a painting; no criticism of it can take away the freedom to paint as the painter wished or the painting’s status as a work of art. More generally, then, subjectivism speaks to the dignity of human beings because, while a person’s subjectivity speaks to his or her existence as an object that can only be confirmed via the recognition of and by the objective and subjective existence of another, a person’s essence does not derive from an other’s existence. So, a person’s construction of moral codes, how to talk about them, and how to act and judge by way of such moral codes issue via his or own subjectivity, his or her own construction of morality in relation to the sense of his or her own constructed essence.
- Why does Sartre state that subjectivism, which is relativistic, allows for moral judgments?
A person has no choice but create a moral world of his or her own in order to judge and act, but such moral construction is to be made freely, as freedom is a basic tenant of Existentialism/Subjectivism. Consequently, since a person will want to be able to freely construct his or own moral codes and judge/act according by way of them, he or she should also seek to protect that freedom for him or herself, which means protecting that liberty for all people. So, in the final moral determination, regardless of the relative circumstances surrounding such determination or one’s own sense of morality, one “cannot not will the freedom of others,” and this, in turn, means that one will judge people and their moral codes and discourse accordingly, and that, in relation to freedom, one “can form judgments upon those who seek to hide from themselves the wholly voluntary nature of their existence and its complete freedom.” So, moral judgements stem from authentically (meaning from one’s true creation of self) creating moral codes and determining if one takes full responsibility for the consequences of those codes.
What Students Are Saying About Us
.......... Customer ID: 12*** | Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐"Honestly, I was afraid to send my paper to you, but you proved you are a trustworthy service. My essay was done in less than a day, and I received a brilliant piece. I didn’t even believe it was my essay at first 🙂 Great job, thank you!"
.......... Customer ID: 11***| Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
"This company is the best there is. They saved me so many times, I cannot even keep count. Now I recommend it to all my friends, and none of them have complained about it. The writers here are excellent."
"Order a custom Paper on Similar Assignment at essayfount.com! No Plagiarism! Enjoy 20% Discount!"
