Resolved
August 7, 2010
No argument will prevail against a person who believes good is subjective.
11 Comments
Comments are closed.
Catholic perspectives on culture, society, and politics
Blog Associations
Site Counter
Ad Free
No argument will prevail against a person who believes good is subjective.
Comments are closed.
Or against a person believes different, converse good is objectively good.
I think I would agree if the word ‘only’ were used:
No argument will prevail against a person who believes good is only subjective.
Stated in this way, the follow up point is that no argument will prevail against a person who believes that there is no extra-mental reality of the good by which we can determine truth claims over it.
And of course, this seems obvious.
To the one who believes reality is nothing but a projection of my own mental perception over all things, dialogue is futile.
But I would also add this observation: depending on the topic in question, a dialogue about the Good where one of the participants seeks to “prevail” are suspect in my mind from the start. Conversation where ‘winning’ is the telos too easily succumbs to hasty equivocating and division.
This is not to say that a discussion about how humans ought to act in seeking the good cannot be “won” if the participants are in fact seeking a determinate resolution (should I steal this car that I really want but cannot afford? etc.).
But in this case, it is a discussion over a particular aspect of the good – namely, how it relates to human action.
Because the Good is God’s very self, it is in excess of all perspectives. This means that it is indeed ‘objective’ if by this we mean independent of all perspectives. But at the very same time, it is not knowable in its entirety or essence, and so gives itself kenotically to every subject or person. Thus, a dialogue about the Good as such ought to recognize that there are legitimate subjective perspectives; the good is also subjective if by this we mean discernible by a subject or recipient of its donation.
The error, in my mind, is in reducing the excess of the good to only one of its perspectives. But this occurs both when one refuses any objective, independent reality, or when one rejects subjectivity and believes that his own subjective perspective IS the objective good.
To what Sam said, I would add that not only will no argument prevail against those who believe in objective good, but also rarely will argument prevail against those who believe in objective good and believe that they have determined what is objectively good, since they believe not only that good is objective, but that their own determinations about what is good are objective as well, and so self-evidently true that others can only claim (in bad faith) to disagree.
The other day I was reading “The Closing of the American Mind.” In it, Allan Bloom discusses how objective good has come out of fashion. People wouldn’t argue that A was better than B, they would argue what basically amounted to indifference to A and B. An example he offered was asking his students if it was right for the British ending the Indian practice of burning a widow with her dead husband. His students skillfully retorted that the British had no business being there in the first place. This was the prudent exercise of tolerance to Indian practices. This was indifference, because to condemn any Indian practice would be broach the modern value that all cultures are equally good, but different.
In discussing same sex marriage, it is quite clear that many people, both left and right do not believe in real and objective social good. Their arguments, if you can really call them that considering that they are basically non-responsive to the issue of social good, amount to little more than appeals to feelings.
Funny you should mention good being subjective because I’m looking for just one “celeb-conservative internet-religious commentator” who is calling for prayers and help for the victims of the floods in Pakistan without mentioning God’s judgement or the falings of Islam? Come on there must be someone out there…Love thy neighbour, anyone?
David, well put—I agree.
M.Z., Bloom’s point is well-taken, but much of his own book is spent showing indifference to the indifference he objects to.
Nice thread!
David’s comment struck me as nonsense. The argument that will prevail in evaluating an objective good is the better argument.
Here’s one, Alexander. Thank you for pointing my gaze at PEOPLE and not precepts. It’s easy for me to forget that on the internet.
Not so, I think. David’s points seemed to point to the belief-laden nature of so-called “objective goods.” This psychological dimension is important, I think.
Arguments do not prevail and are a waste of time or worse.
I have mixed feelings about that book. The beginning and end laid out a description of the “American mind”, and the middle discussed the thinkers that would challenge the current mindset. The purpose was to show the variety and depth of the Enlightenment tradition. But by not taking the side of any particular Enlightenment thinker, Bloom did come off as unconcerned about resolving the important issues.