In the following paragraphs he presents two opinions: one is that there is no conflict and morality simply governs that you should be partial towards those you are intimate with while the other is that the requirement of impartiality undermines personal relationships (they conflict). Impartiality undermines personal relationships because it requires that you are impartial to all people you are intimate with, when in reality you would treat different people differently.
He goes on to say that morality should attempt “to diminish, if not eradicate, the undesirable effects of luck,” which has presented people with inequality (Lafollette). Considering an idea by J. Rachels that says we have duties to be universally impartial he explains that complete impartiality would eliminate personal relationships. Befriending people would not be based on a certain chemistry, it would be due to a moral rule requiring impartiality.
It is finally decided that they are not conflicting, they are mutually supportive of one another. Morality cannot be possible without personal relationships to teach you things such as empathy and close personal relationships require moral people who can trust each other and are interested in the welfare of others.
One thing that caught my eye was his comment that “impartial moral principles dictate that we pursue intimacy,” (Lafollette). I find this to be far fetched. He does not say intimacy is the only way to achieve certain ideals such as loyalty and honesty. So why would morality dictate specifically to pursue intimacy for these ideals? Is it possible to achieve this ideals without intimacy? In that case this could be used to argue that morality and personal relationships do conflict and are possibly even mutually exclusive. He goes on to discuss another problem of how to treat intimates equally, but does not discuss the statement of pursuing intimacy any further.
I think it is obvious that morality and personal relationships sometimes conflict, but rarely to the point of one eliminating the other completely. Sometimes placing morality over loyalty to a friend can result in a disagreement, but the relationship will not necessarily fail. I think to even suggest that they are not possible together is a ridiculous statement because it is obvious to me, from life experience, that they coexist quite effortlessly. Saying that they are supportive of one another and help cause one another I feel is the same as saying that people grow to be better people from life experiences.
3 comments:
Although I do agree with most everything you stated above, I did disagree with your fifth paragraph. I felt that Lafollette was, in fact, stating that personal relationships were necessary for impartial moral principles because people do develop their moral intelligence through experiences and personal relationships. Although he hints that people may have some inherited moral traits, they are primarily learned through personal relationships. On page 4, he writes that people “can develop neither the moral knowledge nor empathy crucial for an impartial morality unless we have been in intimate relationships”. This is why morality dictates specifically to seek intimacy.
He does mention all of the things you said, but I was actually referring just to that specific line which was a transitive argument that says because intimacy promotes certain ideals, we MUST pursue intimacy for the sake of those ideals. I was merely saying the transitive argument isn't A causes B causes C; although A causes B causes C, there are more ways to reach C than ONLY going through B. I don't believe it is ONLY possible to learn compassion or honesty through pursuing intimacy.
I agree with your post as well, although some of what Lafollete said makes sense about the impartiality that comes with friendships I don't believe it's to the extent that he says. I also think its an interesting point you brought up that I didn't catch reading his essay the first time is about having to pursue intimacy for certain ideals. I like the way you explained it in your response to the post, I haven't thought of it that way before.
Post a Comment