The Moral Philosophy of William James REVIEW
Let me try to articulate some of what William James
is saying about the pragmatic approach to ethics.
James asks us to imagine a world where there was nothing but plant life. Could we imagine that world being good or evil? If it were dominated by mushrooms instead of grass or visa-versa, would that be bad or good? He would say, “It doesn’t matter.” Without sentient beings experiencing the world, there would be no bad or good.
Now, let’s add a person to this world. Let’s call him “Adam” for the fun of it. He is the only living sentient thing on the planet. We might argue that if Adam wanted something, and that thing existed to satisfy his want, then he should have it. It would be good for him to have it. And it would bad for him not to have it. Right and wrong would simply be determined by what he wanted. In William James’ world, there is no right or wrong beyond the wants and satisfaction of want of the sentient being who lives in it (and God doesn’t). There was no moral “code” anywhere before our fictitious Adam arrived he argues and there is none sitting around somewhere competing with his.
Now, let’s add another sentient being. I will call her “Eve.” All of a sudden we have added another set of wants to the world. What Adam wants is right. And what Eve wants is right. But what if they want the same watermelon and there is only one watermelon? To James, philosophers have been trying to resolve this dilemma by trying to find an abstract principle that can be appealed to. Something ABOVE what the two sentient beings want that can serve as some sort of a referee or superintended will ABOVE their individual wants. Perhaps there is a God and that God wants Adam to have the watermelon? But James argues that such a thing does not exist. There IS NO morality that exists before the arrival of the sentient beings and there is none above them and their wishes.
There is no “truth.” There is no valid principle that can tell you that it is wrong for Adam to take the watermelon and there is no moral principle that can tell you that it is wrong for Eve to take the watermelon. Just as it was right for Adam to take it before Eve arrived and just as it would be right for Eve to take it if there had never been an Adam, it is right for them both to take the watermelon even though the other exists. They do not have to pursue the greatest good for the greatest number. No God compels them to. There is no force that insists upon “justice” etc.
Pragmatism would simply say that right and wrong are not absolutes. They are the conclusions that groups of people derive from experimenting with behavior. People create socially constructed rules for themselves so that they and others can get what they want but this is always changing as they figure out ways for more people to get more of what they want. “How is success to be absolutely measured when there are so many environments and so many ways of looking at the adaptation?” William James asks us,
“It cannot be measured absolutely; the verdict will vary according to the point of view adopted.”
Pragmatism does not ask “What should we believe?” It asks “What would be better for us to believe?”
Pragmatism works backwards. It does not start with a principle and then move forward to decide how much of what we want we can actually have. It starts by asking “How much of what we want can we all get?” and moves backward to the principles that will allow us to do so. It chooses beliefs pragmatically and discards them when they no longer serve as some new principle would. “But as I have enough trouble in life already without adding the trouble of carrying these intellectual inconsistencies,,” James says, “I personally just give up the Absolute.”
“The whole function of philosophy ought to be to find out what definite difference it will make to you and to me, at definite instants of our life, if this world-formula or that world-formula be the true one. . . . [Pragmatism] has no dogmas, and no doctrines save its method. . . . No particular results then, so far, but only an attitude of orientation, is what the pragmatic method means. The attitude of looking away from first things, principles, 'categories,' supposed necessities; and of looking towards last things, fruits, consequences, facts.”
Principles, rules, laws, moral codes? None of these things are to be treated as absolutes. All can and must be compromised and adapted in the effort to satisfy the wants of as many individual wills as possible. Whatever works. “The essence of good is what satisfies demand,” he writes. Thus, no one can KNOW right from wrong beforehand. We are experimenting to find better ways of doing things but today’s “right” will be tomorrow’s “wrong” as we get better and better at satisfying more demands. “Right” and “Wrong” are terms that will always need to be redefined.
“On the whole, then, we must conclude that no philosophy of ethics is possible in the old‑fashioned absolute sense of the term. Everywhere the ethical philosopher must wait on facts.”
Religious ethics, James would argue are inhibitive to this sort of moral “progress.”
“[religious moralists] do much to spoil this merit on the whole, however, by mixing with it that dogmatic temper which, by absolute distinctions and unconditional "thou shalt nots," changes a growing, elastic, and continuous life into a superstitious system of relics and dead bones. In point of fact, there are no absolute evils, and there are no non‑moral goods; and the highest ethical life--however few may be called to bear its burdens--consists at all times in the breaking of rules which have grown too narrow for the actual case.”
Concrete ethics, says James, “cannot be final.”
“Objective evidence and certitude are doubtless very fine ideals to play with, but where on this moonlit and dream-visited planet are they found? I am, therefore, myself a complete empiricist so far as my theory of human knowledge goes. I live, to be sure, by the practical faith that we must go on experiencing and thinking over our experience, for only thus can our opinions grow more true; but to hold any one of them--I absolutely do not care which--as if it never could be reinterpretable or corrigible, I believe to be a tremendously mistaken attitude, and I think that the whole history of philosophy will bear me out.”
James is not opposed to faith. He does not believe that being duped by a faith system is necessarily the worst of all outcomes. If a faith systems works for you, then by all means, give it a try and keep trying it out.
“We cannot escape the issue by remaining skeptical and waiting for more light, because, although we do avoid error in that way if religion be untrue, we lose the good, if it be true, just as certainly as if we positively chose to disbelieve. It is as if a man should hesitate indefinitely to ask a certain woman to marry him because he was not perfectly sure that she would prove an angel after he brought her home. Would he not cut himself off from that particular angel-possibility as decisively as if he went and married some one else? . . .
We stand on a mountain pass in the midst of whirling snow and blinding mist through which we get glimpses now and then of paths which may be deceptive. If we stand still we shall be frozen to death. If we take the wrong road we shall be dashed to pieces. We do not certainly know whether there is any right one. What must we do? ' Be strong and of a good courage.' Act for the best, hope for the best, and take what comes. . . . If death ends all, we cannot meet death better.”
Thus for William James, the task of the philosopher – the lover of wisdom is to be an observer of an experiment whose aim is to better meet the demands of more people. Philosophers should be in pursuit of better outcomes and decline from the pursuit of absolutes. If we wish to pursue sainthood by practicing religion to “excess” he has no objections. Our doing so simply adds data to the grand human experiment. He will be happy to see if my personal experiment in monasticism or asceticism succeeds for me. If it does, perhaps he may consider adopting it. “Let us be saints, then, if we can,” he says,
“whether or not we succeed visibly and temporally. But in our Father’s house are many mansions, and each of us must discover for himself the kind of religion and the amount of saintship which best comports with what he believes to be his powers and feels to be his truest mission and vocation. There are no successes to be guaranteed and no set orders to be given to individuals, so long as we follow the methods of empirical philosophy.”
Pragmatism has in fact no prejudices whatever,” he adds,
“no obstructive dogmas, no rigid canons of what shall count as proof. She is completely genial. She will entertain any hypothesis, she will consider any evidence. . . . Any idea upon which we can ride, so to speak; any idea that will carry us prosperously from any one part of our experience to any other part, linking things satisfactorily, working securely, simplifying, saving labor; is true for just so much, true in so far forth, true instrumentally.”
It is not for the philosopher to place limitations upon experimentation. It is not for the person who cannot know truth without experiment to prohibit experiment.
“Pragmatism has to postpone dogmatic answer, for we do not yet know certainly which type of religion is going to work best in the long run.”
It is not difficult to see how much the world we live is being influenced by such ideas. In some respects America is far more pragmatist than it is Judao-Christian in the way that it thinks about ethics today. And whether that works out well or ill for us is … in the end, a grand experiment.
Question for Comment: Have you ever “tried out” a different way of thinking about right and wrong? What is the danger in such experimentation?
Comments