A Zoroastrian Educational Institute

The Gathas and Contemporary Moral Philosophy

Series:
Ethics
Philosophy

Author:
Natalie Vania, Ph.D.

Subtopics:
A Gathic Moral Vision
Philosophy
Meta-ethics and Morality
Normative and Moral...
Applied Ethics
Advantages offered...
Clarity
Depth
A Life of Learning
Fascination
Address to the Human...
Open Matters in...
Ambassadorship for...
Zarathushtrian Inst...
Conclusion
Author Profile

Reference:

Related Articles:
A Reading List

Related Links:
Web Resources...

A Gathic Moral Vision (Version 1)

Understanding substantial positions in moral philosophy and ways in which the Gathas resonate on these positions can deepen discussion of morality and the Gathas.[i] Opportunity exists to connect, or deepen, people's understanding of morality amenably with their acceptance of the Gathas as a source of moral vision.

If Zoroastrian Youths happen to study a course in moral philosophy or ethics as taught in North American universities, this discussion helps them consider the Gathas in relation to contemporary understanding. Our discussion explains itself on the subject of Contemporary Moral Philosophy, so any interested party, reading from a Gathic orientation, can develop lines of thought on its puzzles. Thereby, a thinker who would like to reflect more upon the Gathas can be guided by useful points of departure for reflection.

In this overview, we sketch an outline of Contemporary Moral Philosophy as a useful tool for approaching moral philosophy and we place Contemporary Moral Philosophy into position for more sustained learning: Contemporary Moral Philosophy is vast and this sketch provides a simple framework of its rich resources.

Contemporary Moral Philosophy is both a field of study and an understanding offered by such study. As a formal field of study, it is commonly available in many places of the world. One can readily find an undergraduate university course for which it, or some part of it, is the subject matter. Departments of Philosophy will generally offer courses in Moral Philosophy. It assists us to take some departures on the matter of what Philosophy itself is.

Philosophy

Philosophy again is both a field of study and such understanding as offered by the study, or understanding that is "philosophical". Its most basic definitions explain it as "the love of Wisdom, Knowledge; Truth". "Philosophy" itself is a word tracing back to Ancient Greece, whereby "philos" is Love and "sophia", Wisdom. In its widest sense, it is the capacity to reflect and think abstractly, generally, with depth, and profoundly on all aspects of the human condition and the World.

Subject matter in the formal study of Philosophy is often divided into such categories as,

• Metaphysics and ontology (the study of what there is and its nature, the nature of existence, God, Time),

• Epistemology (the study of what knowledge is and how it is acquired),

• Philosophy of language,

• Philosophy of history,

• Logic, and

• Normative inquiry (inquiry dealing with values and the topics of art, morality, law, politics, society, religion).

Innovation occurs inside the Academy and one also finds formalized studies in areas such as Women Studies and Cultural Studies inside Philosophy Departments.

The discipline of Philosophy touches many other disciplines in the Academy. One can find philosophical issues and Contemporary Moral Philosophy treated in divergent domains. For example, one might find a medical ethics course taught by a School of Medicine. Law schools will offer political philosophy and legal ethics. Computer departments may offer units dealing with issues in the Philosophy of Mind. Indeed, Philosophy was once regarded as the "Queen of the Sciences" and thus is prevalent in all areas of study. Doctorates commonly reflect this outlook by their formal stipulation being Doctor in Philosophy of such and such specialized field.

As Philosophy is a most general and abstract field pertaining to the human condition, it has a very long history. Methods and styles of thought pertinently considered philosophical have varied over millenniums as Philosophy has spanned historical developments, most notably, the invention of writing, books, and printing.

Modern Philosophy pertains to the time after which Europe began to emerge from its Dark Ages and Medieval times. Modern Philosophy emerges with other dynamic forces which present social change from medieval feudalism, such as the growth of science, commerce, and new political systems. Philosophers of the modern era, such as Descartes, were both "men of science", "Natural Philosophers", as well as major figures in Philosophy. Descartes pursued science, extending Calculus and inventing Cartesian method in mathematics and geometry, and he pursued philosophy, developing arguments for the existence of God and elucidating the nature of perception and knowledge.

The last hundred or so years begin the time of Contemporary Philosophy and it may be considered part of both Modern Philosophy and even later developments, such as Post-Modernism.

With Contemporary Philosophy being an outgrowth of Modern Philosophy, certain styles of thought and certain methods are at the forefront of what it offers. The Analytic style of Philosophy, especially predominant throughout the 20th century in Western Philosophy, is especially valued. It asserts the preeminence of clarity of thought, achieved by precise argument, careful language, and conceptual analysis. Positions are best supported and debated by offering deductively valid arguments (i.e., those for which the conclusions must follow, if asserted premises are true, on pain otherwise of logical inconsistency). Standards of critical reasoning emulate the virtues of deductive argument. Explicit, open, and clear argumentation is pursued. Less rigorous and more diffuse rhetorical styles, offered by Continental Philosophy (of the continent, Europe) are partially available in North America.

When Contemporary Philosophy draws upon insights from other times, it often isolates and presents those insights in the style of analytic argumentation.

Contemporary Moral Philosophy spans three general areas, Meta-ethics, Moral Theory, and Applied Ethics.

Meta-ethics and Morality

Morality itself at its most abstract level offers puzzles. These puzzles may also involve differing metaphysical and epistemological orientations. Meta-ethics lies between metaphysical and epistemological concerns, and substantive alternatives on what constitutes right action.

Questions at the metaethical level include,[v]

• How is Morality alike or different from other evaluative institutions, (i.e., How is Morality more than Etiquette? How is Morality alike or different from Legality?)

• Does Morality have normative force? (Is a moral claim an expression of sentiment or a call upon behavior? Are moral claims like cheering or like directives for action?)

• How does Morality derive or get its normative force (i.e., Is Morality founded by Reason? By God? By Prudence?)

• How strong is Morality's normative force? (I.e., Are moral claims overriding? Are they limited to special contexts for action?)

• What is the relationship between Morality, Prudence, Rationality, and Self-Interest?

• What is the nature of moral failing?

• What relationship does Morality have to theories of action?

• What are Moral Skepticism and Amoral-ism?

• What does Morality entail for personhood, identity, and human nature?

• Does Morality presume a theology?

• Does Morality admit of theories? (i.e., Should theories converge on similar answers to moral perplexities? Do conflicting theories indicate that Morality is not like science?)

• Is moral knowledge like or unlike other knowledge?

• What is the nature of The Good?

• Are there moral dilemmas?

• Is there moral luck?

Normative and Moral Theory

Normative concerns are about how things should or ought to be. Normative assessments pertain to what evaluations are justified and legitimate. Many areas, not only morality, have a normative aspect. In logic, the normative concern is over whether an argument is valid (conclusion follows if premises are true). Epistemically, our normative concern centers on how certain we are of some item of knowledge. Artistically, our normative concern may center on how skillful an artist has been, whether an item is beautiful, or even is art. In law, normative concerns raise matters of the application of correct and fair procedure in the course of securing Justice. In etiquette, the normative concern centers on whether standards of politeness are met.

Normative concerns predominate for morality. Indeed, Morality is the paradigm, the best example, of normative assessment. Morality's normative concerns pertain to at least action, intent, character, and people. When is an act right? When is our state of mind good? What character is best cultivated? Who is a good person?

And, these questions have their corresponding negative appraisals. When is an act wrong? When is one's intent bad? What character traits are immoral? Who is a bad person? Why?

Moral Theory addresses morality's normative aspect with the aim to offer, support, and advocate positive substantial views. In Contemporary Moral Philosophy, three leading contenders for moral theories are utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue theory.

Utilitarianism is the view that the right action maximizes the expected utility of a future outcome. Let me use a simple example. Suppose you are deciding what to do for a Friday evening after a long week of studies. Your options may include reading two chapters of your biology text, listening to CDs, going with a group of friends for pizza and a movie. If these choices exhaust the possibilities for action, then as a utilitarian, one assesses each act, asking about its likely consequences. One ranks those possible outcomes according to which produces the most utility. For the utilitarian, the utility in question is the overall utility produced for everyone. It is neither the utility produced for oneself, nor for a group (you and your friends), but for all. It is commonly understood by John Stuart Mill's phrase, "as the greatest happiness for the greatest number", or the most good. Once you have assessed possible outcomes with respect to utility, the utilitarian standard mandates that you choose the act that leads to the best outcome, that with the highest utility.

We've elaborated the most direct utilitarian position. Even in this small example, one notes many aspects indicating that many positions may be taken in further elucidating a utilitarian orientation. Should one be assessing single acts or assessing behaviors or policies for collections of acts? How good is the tie between act and consequence? Since the connection between act and consequence will not be perfect (we can only anticipate expected consequences), is the right act the one expected to produce best consequences or the act which actually produces best consequences? Is the universe of possible acts broadly enough enumerated or does one have reason to assess every possible course of action for the evening? If one performs the right act as utilitarianism indicates, does poor intent or poor character enter into assessing the agent? If one fails the utilitarian guideline, are "backwards-looking" considerations or regret in order?

Deontological moral theories ground the notion of right action in obligation, duties, rights, or rules rather than the production of utility. Obligation and duty place the focus of moral appraisal on motivation and intention. Considering intent goes more quickly to an agent's inner state of mind than to action's utility. Consider again our simple example of deciding what to do on a Friday evening. A deontologist would likely assess her obligations and have them direct her activity. Had she obliged herself with a promise to meet a friend for the evening? What other obligations exist? Could a person have duties towards family, say to share time together? For the strict deontologist, acting from a motive of duty, to fulfill a duty, and acting only from such motive, is the right thing to do.

As with the utilitarian view, deontology admits of many aspects through which a variety of deontological moral orientations exist. What are the duties and obligations to which one must adhere? How are they determined? Can they conflict with one another? If so, which have priority over remaining duties? How many duties do people have? Does this differ for different people and why? What do we make of inner motivation that seems not to match external act? What kinds of inner motivation do deontologists not include as morally worthy?

Virtue theories center upon character traits exhibiting moral excellence in some aspect or another and appraise the agent based upon good character. If the character of our agent in the Friday evening example is best, we grant admiration, even praise, to the agent. If during the course of Friday evening activity, the agent displayed virtues such as kindness, courage, truthfulness, and bravery we would think of the person as someone to emulate.

Moral theories provide substantive positions on morality. As might be discerned from the example of what action to undertake for a casual Friday evening, different moral theories do not easily converge upon the same answer. Different theories construe right action in different ways. This has proved most vexing and led to questions about the use of theoretical approaches to morality. Some virtue theorists have gone as far as to renounce the use of moral theories and to recommend approaches to learning of virtue and virtues more discursively. For example, one might read literature elucidating virtues. We find stories in Aesop’s fables and the Shah Nameh in which virtuous conduct is displayed.

Applied Ethics

In applied ethics, we find contemporary practical issues treated with the tools of philosophical analysis, casuistry (the special and detailed study of some ethical quandary), special fields of ethical inquiry (such as legal and medical ethics), professional ethics, and codified ethics.

Moral theories may be more fully applied and developed in the context of a contemporary issue. For example, animal rights proponents offer utilitarian arguments in support of better treatment of animals. Rights-based, deontological arguments, are also put forward by animal rights advocates. The intriguing problem of moral theories providing differing, even conflicting grounds, for moral claims arises in discussion of contemporary issues to which moral theories apply. Proponents for humane treatment of animals have differing foundations and corresponding differing implications in their fine-grained implications for the treatment of animals.

While this is a problem, it is useful to develop moral views and theories in conjunction with their application to real-life contemporary issues. Theory can be informed by practical experience. As well, transition from the generality of theory to the particularity of applied issues enriches moral understanding. The challenge of developing a consistent moral position across diverse applied issues (as the Catholic Church attempts in its unified opposition to the death penalty and reproductive rights) also presents the theoretical challenge of coherence and consistency.

• A substantial place exists for Professional Ethics with so many of our people serving at high levels in the professions. Many of us are noted for distinctive ethical concern in professional life. Isolating this strength and undertaking a coordinated appraisal across different professional roles would produce fruitful material.

• As mentioned, we can extract moral insight from our literature, as in the case of reflecting on the virtues conveyed through the stories in the Shah Nameh. Such extraction can extend the Gathic Vision.

• We can use the straightforward understanding of our Gathic Vision to re-examine and appraise items which we have understood on other terms. For example, the gem of a novel, The Long Night of Francisco Sanctis, is very useful in conveying the Kantian insistence that action be done from duty rather than in accord with duty.[xii] When Gathic imports are added to the interpretation, the obligations to acquire and act upon knowledge are also conveyed. One sees a sublime example of Truth obliging action. The agent’s righteousness outstrips his own unfortunate contingent situation and his right choice secures unending good repute.

• An applied ethic of Gathic Moral Vision should be useful in more readily enabling us to distinguish Zarathushti outlooks from engrained non-Zoroastrian cultural presumptions. Without distinction, these presumptions, on their own terms benign, can be corrosive to an alternative worldview.

Advantages offered by the Study of Contemporary Moral Philosophy

The advantages offered by the study of Contemporary Moral Philosophy are many.

Clarity

Contemporary Moral Philosophy is especially able to provide clarity for two reasons. First, in seeing matters of moral concern treated, one is given more information. Greater information increases understanding. For example, we may wish to provide instructions for end of life treatment in the case of our incapacity. A moralist who can guide one through a discussion of euthanasia gives a person contemplating signing a Do Not Resuscitate Order a full range of information about the subject of euthanasia. Thereby, one's understanding of the moral concerns at issue is enhanced. One has a deeper view, and a view which is more insightful in how much it can foresee.

The second reason why Contemporary Moral Philosophy provides special clarity is due its reliance on sharp, clear philosophical analysis. Analytical strength is gained by the study of Contemporary Moral Philosophy. One acquires the capacity to think in a sustained, rigorous, publicly accessible, rhetorically simple, non-manipulative, and deductively strong manner. One acquires a capacity to analytically support one's points of view. Such capacity is vital to any person who wishes to provide reasons and considered judgment for their views and to be able to persuade others of their views. The strength of the analytic approach is that another person accepting the premises of one's valid argument is epistemically obliged to accept the conclusion entailed by the premises. One acquires the capacities of responsible judgment, i.e. the weighing of various considerations and development of a balanced position among diverse factors.

When one does not accept an argument's conclusion, one is a fair step along in diagnosing why and can offer counterargument, another result of clarity of thought. Through argument and counterargument, understanding can be mutually enriched in fruitful discussion.

Depth

When one has studied a subject, one’s depth for that subject grows. This means that an agent can foresee more cases, more sorts of cases, associations and analogies between varieties of cases, and more fully into a case. Implications of the features surrounding a case are clarified and the agent is more readied and more attuned to discern factors affecting a situation. One’s positions become honed by real-world complexity and less shrill or dogmatic. One achieves a resonance and has judicious and temperate outlook.

Without depth, the discourse of our community is hurt. Scholarship in a less knowing community results in its use as a tool of status and the real force of thoughtful ideas becomes obscured.

A third need for the depth achieved in the study of Contemporary Moral Philosophy is its aid in achieving cultural currency. The concerns of moral philosophers arise in many cultural venues. One’s sophistication in grappling with the culture is aided in knowing the substance of Contemporary Moral Philosophy.

A Life of Learning

Another advantage of Contemporary Moral Philosophy is that its study entrenches one in a life of learning, a life of the mind. We are often rushing to acquire credentials for professions and managing the practicalities of our immediate livelihood. In this, we require the sustaining methods of contemplative learning and study as a counterpart to practical living. The tools of scholarship through which one's mind is nurtured as an inquirer provide forceful input when used in ordinary and professional life. Contemporary Moral Philosophy itself provides a basis for study in other disciplines such as law, anthropology, psychology, religious study, public policy, history and more. Through an active and sustained approach to learning, one attains a connection with thinkers who are not of our era but by whom one becomes excited and rues the temporal distance placing them beyond ready engagement with us. One becomes a student of Moral Philosophy for life, for one can never exhaust the wealth of what fine authors offer in understanding the moral life. Thereby, the student of Contemporary Moral Philosophy welcomes learning throughout life, joining an eon-spanning human community of respect for learning.

Fascination

Contemporary Moral Philosophy fascinates an inquirer. Moral concerns can be troubling, persistent, draining, and raise anxiety. But they are also astounding in the perplexity, significance, implication, depth, intrigue, connection and enlightenment which they provide. Just as the artist is consumed by Art, the moralist too is struck by Morality. As the paradigm for normative inquiry, Morality offers this special feature of itself to us. Since its normativity always belongs to Morality, the inquirer can be assured that Morality's capacity to fascinate always persists.

Address to the Human Condition

Through the history of humankind, people have wondered and been concerned with the perennial issues of their condition. The cave dweller, the forager, the hunter, the king, the worker, the bureaucrat, the slave, the tormentor, the healer, all face the challenges of their human existence. For each, questions common to all of us as human beings arise. Humans cannot resist asking whys and wherefores of their situation. For those whose questioning and wonderment is constrained, we fear some great damage to their personhood, whether by self or society. Contemporary Moral Philosophy is a good way in which one today can enter into the great and unending process of wonderment and engagement with the perplexities of humanity.

Today, in Brazil, small children perish unloved, in Africa a corrupt warlord amputates the limbs of civilians, in America an innocent person awaits execution on death row, in Russia a ruthless criminal force takes the assets due the populace, in China, the Youth are denied information of disease transmission, in Afghanistan, tubercular women’s dress does not allow their bodies sunlight to make vitamin D, the South Asian foes devote resources to the weapons of mass destruction, the list is endless and it is so for the entire length of recorded history. And in the same moment, we live in the best era of startling promise and opportunity unlike any the world has seen or might see ... Contemporary Moral Philosophy provides a capacity to embrace the human condition in its fullness and to make one's way in our singular time amidst hope and despair. The Zoroastrian proceeds with unflinching awareness of promise and waste.[xiii]

Open Matters in Philosophy, Academia, and Globalization

Philosophy does not have an easy time in the Academy or in society at large. In a formal sense, even the American Philosophical Association, long adverse to any professionalization of something so fine in vision as "the love of Wisdom" is confronting the limited understanding North Americans have of it with an initiative. It will engage Philosophers with the larger public, offering it the rare wealth of its best proponents.

This is prudent in a time when even the position and role of the Academy itself is in flux. The institutions of higher education, developed throughout North America, as an acme of world research and achievement, tremble in a fierce climate of market demand for the resources of, and the resources to make, the best thinkers. Derrida[xiv] moved his audience to stunned ovation in reinforcing the role of the professoriate in society: The sacred role is as is said, "to profess", to critically assess and stand in professing to the larger society. This social role is endangered and the Academy itself wrestles with its positioning for market share.

Contemporary Moral Philosophy has been an outgrowth of Modern Philosophy and that has been so much the Philosophy of the West, of Europe, Britain, and the US. Surely it offers much in the global era, just as it is itself enriched with the understanding from cultures once far-off.

But Globalization itself, of what measure does it leave for Philosophy and erudite concerns such as represented by Contemporary Moral Philosophy? Won't the methods and styles for human accord go beyond skilled argument and be dominated by the play of markets? It may be maintained that in the development of markets, critical thought and judgment, Reason, must at the boardroom table, and it is the hope of liberalism that freedom too is in the making of the new world order.[xv]

Zarathushtis are especially attuned for the Global era. By our history, we have cause to embrace a global outlook and understanding of peoples, as the religion has moved throughout continents in its long impact upon global culture. By our current occasion, we confront a challenging task of globalization drawing upon the gentle skills of diplomacy between older cultures from Iran and India, the new World in North America, and Russia and Central Asia. Thirdly, the Gathic creed is singular in advocacy of beneficence for the World and the World-Soul. Asha, Freshokareti, Truth are of an extensive cosmic dimension, going beyond communalism. Forth, rational and analytic thrust in world development, in correspondence with the Zarathushti demand for clarity of thought, has a fragile status. Zarathushtrians often have cause to know this more personally than many in a more protected North American culture. The protection of Reason is requisite if Hobbessian resort of all against all is to be diminished in a world offering many occasions for upheaval.

Ambassadorship for the Gathic Vision

The profound Gathic vision offered by Zarathushtra is unknown inside Contemporary Moral Philosophy, indeed in the larger North American society as well. If obscurity is not to be our inheritance on this continent, we have a special task. Each of us lives here as more than a private individual. We each have upon us a special office, a duty. We are the ambassadors of Zarathushtrianism, diplomats, in the New World. Whether our style of life is quiet or large, limitedly or privileged, who and what Zarathushtis are will be understood by the behavior and graciousness of each of us, taken together into the social stereotype that will emerge of us. Gentle ambassadorship will go no further than will our competence and contribution. People resist what is different and strident, and no advocacy for Zarathushtrianism should work better than one by which people are already won over by the model of one's subtle diplomacy before the name of Zarathushtra is even put forward.

Zarathushtrian Institutions and Contemporary Moral Philosophy

Our institutions, local associations and the larger organizations, can move us forward by continuing to develop their member’s understanding and appreciation of Contemporary Moral Philosophy, and by alerting Moral Philosophers to the Zarathushti vision. Local associations can build connections with Moral Philosophers in their locale and can sponsor short series of instruction on sets of contemporary moral issues. A special interest group can be formed for discussion at American Philosophical Association conferences, a major venue of the profession.

Conclusion

Zarathushtis gain cultural currency by Contemporary Moral Philosophy, while being assured in offering a singular and valuable philosophical orientation aiding the external culture and aiding internal Zarathushti culture.

Ó Natalie Vania, 2000, all rights reserved, permission given Vohuman.org for web publication.

A Reading List

Beauchamp, Tom L., Philosophical Ethics: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1982.

Foot, Philippa, Virtues and Vices, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1978.

Kagan, Shelly, The Limits of Morality, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1989.

Kant, Immanuel The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals Thomas Abbott, (trans.), Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis, 1949.

MacIntyre, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory, University of Notre Dame Press, 1984.

Mill, John Stuart, Utilitarianism, with critical essays, Samuel Gorovitz, editor, Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merrill, 1971. Also, Mill, On Liberty.

Moore, George Edward, Principia Ethica, Cambridge University Press, 1903.

Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Havard University Press, 1974.

Ross, W.D. The Right and the Good, Oxford, 1930.

Slote, Beyond Optimizing, A Study in Rational Choice, Oxford University Press, New York, 1983.

Sterba, James, editor, Contemporary Ethics: Selected Readings, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice Hall, 1989.

Sen, Amartya, Development As Freedom, Knopf, 1999.

Web Resources For Contemporary Moral Philosophy

1. http://ethics.acusd.edu/

2. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~sdarwall/

3. http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~korsgaar/#Publications

4. http://www.inform.umd.edu/PHIL/Faculty/slote.html

5. http://www.woodrow.org/