In Response to Kyle (Q&A #7: Question 2)
“Is objectivity ever "internal" and
human?
I did not think so. I do not think anyone can be objective with everything that has happened in their life shaping their every decision. However, Professor Johnson straightened out some of the confusion explaining that all ethical viewpoints are objective because they emanate from the person, not the world itself. Objectivity is what reason demands.”
I did not think so. I do not think anyone can be objective with everything that has happened in their life shaping their every decision. However, Professor Johnson straightened out some of the confusion explaining that all ethical viewpoints are objective because they emanate from the person, not the world itself. Objectivity is what reason demands.”
I agree with Kyle in
that the idea that objectivity is “internal” and “human” is highly contentious.
However, I think that I understand the central point that Nussbaum is making,
and I would say that I agree. Of course,
DKJ’s suggestion that objectivity is demanded by reason clears up a lot of this
confusion, but I still think there is something more to be said about this
issue.
In regards to ethical
concerns of a certain sort, I think it is “internal” and “humans” to be drawn
towards these issues; this is what I view as the other dimension of this
discussion. When I read Nussbaum, I could not help but imagine that natural
pull that humans have towards certain circumstances. Furthermore, I think that
is this element of literature that makes it so effective conveying ethical
truths. When a person read about the graphic injustices in Dostoyevsky, I do not
think they can help but think deeply about the ethical concerns in those
events; this process if “internal” and “human”.
0 comments:
Post a Comment