Deck 41: Mary Midgley

Question 1

Mary Midgley: Trying Out One's New Sword
Midgley argues against a view she calls moral isolationism, which holds that we cannot understand cultures other than our own well enough to make moral judgments about them. Many people, Midgley notes, accept moral isolationism on grounds of respect and tolerance. But, according to Midgley, not only is this wrong it is entirely wrongheaded.
To test moral isolationism, Midgley introduces a custom from ancient Japanese culture. Needing to test if their newly crafted swords could cut through a person in a single blow, samurai would slice wayfarers in half. The moral isolationist is committed to holding that, given our lack of understanding of ancient Japanese culture, respect and tolerance demand we refrain from judging the samurai's testing practices.
But this verdict is, Midgley argues, mistaken on a number of fronts. First, to respect people we have to know enough about them to make a favorable judgment. Hence, Midgley maintains, the moral isolationist cannot ground her isolationism on both a lack of understanding and respect. Moreover, understanding occurs gradually; it is not all or nothing. Second, moral isolationism, Midgley claims, would undercut moral reasoning as such. For if we cannot judge other cultures, we cannot judge our own. Other societies provide the range of relevant comparison. Our moral reasoning, Midgley maintains, is made possible by looking to the practices of others. Accordingly, moral isolationism leads to a kind of moral mental suicide.
Abandoning moral isolationism, however, does not come at a high cost. We already, Midgley notes, try to justify the behavior of those we only barely understand. For example, many people's initial reaction is to try and justify the samurai's behavior. But attempting this kind of justification is an implicit denial of moral isolationism. In addition, nearly every culture is a hodgepodge of different influences, and we nonetheless morally engage with our own culture. In short, Midgley concludes that moral isolationism is untenable and the costs of giving it up are not high.
-What, according to Midgley, is moral isolationism? What are the merits of moral isolationism? Do you think a version of this position is immune to Midgley's attacks? Explain your answer.

Answer 1

No Answer

Question 2

Mary Midgley: Trying Out One's New Sword
Midgley argues against a view she calls moral isolationism, which holds that we cannot understand cultures other than our own well enough to make moral judgments about them. Many people, Midgley notes, accept moral isolationism on grounds of respect and tolerance. But, according to Midgley, not only is this wrong it is entirely wrongheaded.
To test moral isolationism, Midgley introduces a custom from ancient Japanese culture. Needing to test if their newly crafted swords could cut through a person in a single blow, samurai would slice wayfarers in half. The moral isolationist is committed to holding that, given our lack of understanding of ancient Japanese culture, respect and tolerance demand we refrain from judging the samurai's testing practices.
But this verdict is, Midgley argues, mistaken on a number of fronts. First, to respect people we have to know enough about them to make a favorable judgment. Hence, Midgley maintains, the moral isolationist cannot ground her isolationism on both a lack of understanding and respect. Moreover, understanding occurs gradually; it is not all or nothing. Second, moral isolationism, Midgley claims, would undercut moral reasoning as such. For if we cannot judge other cultures, we cannot judge our own. Other societies provide the range of relevant comparison. Our moral reasoning, Midgley maintains, is made possible by looking to the practices of others. Accordingly, moral isolationism leads to a kind of moral mental suicide.
Abandoning moral isolationism, however, does not come at a high cost. We already, Midgley notes, try to justify the behavior of those we only barely understand. For example, many people's initial reaction is to try and justify the samurai's behavior. But attempting this kind of justification is an implicit denial of moral isolationism. In addition, nearly every culture is a hodgepodge of different influences, and we nonetheless morally engage with our own culture. In short, Midgley concludes that moral isolationism is untenable and the costs of giving it up are not high.
-Explain Midgley's example of trying out one's new sword. What does Midgley aim to show with this example? Do you think the example accomplishes what Midgley intends for it to accomplish. Why or why not?

Answer 2

No Answer

Question 3

Mary Midgley: Trying Out One's New Sword
Midgley argues against a view she calls moral isolationism, which holds that we cannot understand cultures other than our own well enough to make moral judgments about them. Many people, Midgley notes, accept moral isolationism on grounds of respect and tolerance. But, according to Midgley, not only is this wrong it is entirely wrongheaded.
To test moral isolationism, Midgley introduces a custom from ancient Japanese culture. Needing to test if their newly crafted swords could cut through a person in a single blow, samurai would slice wayfarers in half. The moral isolationist is committed to holding that, given our lack of understanding of ancient Japanese culture, respect and tolerance demand we refrain from judging the samurai's testing practices.
But this verdict is, Midgley argues, mistaken on a number of fronts. First, to respect people we have to know enough about them to make a favorable judgment. Hence, Midgley maintains, the moral isolationist cannot ground her isolationism on both a lack of understanding and respect. Moreover, understanding occurs gradually; it is not all or nothing. Second, moral isolationism, Midgley claims, would undercut moral reasoning as such. For if we cannot judge other cultures, we cannot judge our own. Other societies provide the range of relevant comparison. Our moral reasoning, Midgley maintains, is made possible by looking to the practices of others. Accordingly, moral isolationism leads to a kind of moral mental suicide.
Abandoning moral isolationism, however, does not come at a high cost. We already, Midgley notes, try to justify the behavior of those we only barely understand. For example, many people's initial reaction is to try and justify the samurai's behavior. But attempting this kind of justification is an implicit denial of moral isolationism. In addition, nearly every culture is a hodgepodge of different influences, and we nonetheless morally engage with our own culture. In short, Midgley concludes that moral isolationism is untenable and the costs of giving it up are not high.
-Midgley claims moral reasoning requires the possibility of judging the practices of other societies. What argument does Midgley supply to justify this claim? Do you find her argument plausible? Defend your answer.

Answer 3

No Answer

Question 4

Mary Midgley: Trying Out One's New Sword
Midgley argues against a view she calls moral isolationism, which holds that we cannot understand cultures other than our own well enough to make moral judgments about them. Many people, Midgley notes, accept moral isolationism on grounds of respect and tolerance. But, according to Midgley, not only is this wrong it is entirely wrongheaded.
To test moral isolationism, Midgley introduces a custom from ancient Japanese culture. Needing to test if their newly crafted swords could cut through a person in a single blow, samurai would slice wayfarers in half. The moral isolationist is committed to holding that, given our lack of understanding of ancient Japanese culture, respect and tolerance demand we refrain from judging the samurai's testing practices.
But this verdict is, Midgley argues, mistaken on a number of fronts. First, to respect people we have to know enough about them to make a favorable judgment. Hence, Midgley maintains, the moral isolationist cannot ground her isolationism on both a lack of understanding and respect. Moreover, understanding occurs gradually; it is not all or nothing. Second, moral isolationism, Midgley claims, would undercut moral reasoning as such. For if we cannot judge other cultures, we cannot judge our own. Other societies provide the range of relevant comparison. Our moral reasoning, Midgley maintains, is made possible by looking to the practices of others. Accordingly, moral isolationism leads to a kind of moral mental suicide.
Abandoning moral isolationism, however, does not come at a high cost. We already, Midgley notes, try to justify the behavior of those we only barely understand. For example, many people's initial reaction is to try and justify the samurai's behavior. But attempting this kind of justification is an implicit denial of moral isolationism. In addition, nearly every culture is a hodgepodge of different influences, and we nonetheless morally engage with our own culture. In short, Midgley concludes that moral isolationism is untenable and the costs of giving it up are not high.
-Midgley notes that nearly all cultures are the product of a number of different influences. Does this claim call into question moral isolationism? Even if a moral isolationist grants this claim, might she still maintain her position?

Question 5

Mary Midgley: Trying Out One's New Sword
Midgley argues against a view she calls moral isolationism, which holds that we cannot understand cultures other than our own well enough to make moral judgments about them. Many people, Midgley notes, accept moral isolationism on grounds of respect and tolerance. But, according to Midgley, not only is this wrong it is entirely wrongheaded.
To test moral isolationism, Midgley introduces a custom from ancient Japanese culture. Needing to test if their newly crafted swords could cut through a person in a single blow, samurai would slice wayfarers in half. The moral isolationist is committed to holding that, given our lack of understanding of ancient Japanese culture, respect and tolerance demand we refrain from judging the samurai's testing practices.
But this verdict is, Midgley argues, mistaken on a number of fronts. First, to respect people we have to know enough about them to make a favorable judgment. Hence, Midgley maintains, the moral isolationist cannot ground her isolationism on both a lack of understanding and respect. Moreover, understanding occurs gradually; it is not all or nothing. Second, moral isolationism, Midgley claims, would undercut moral reasoning as such. For if we cannot judge other cultures, we cannot judge our own. Other societies provide the range of relevant comparison. Our moral reasoning, Midgley maintains, is made possible by looking to the practices of others. Accordingly, moral isolationism leads to a kind of moral mental suicide.
Abandoning moral isolationism, however, does not come at a high cost. We already, Midgley notes, try to justify the behavior of those we only barely understand. For example, many people's initial reaction is to try and justify the samurai's behavior. But attempting this kind of justification is an implicit denial of moral isolationism. In addition, nearly every culture is a hodgepodge of different influences, and we nonetheless morally engage with our own culture. In short, Midgley concludes that moral isolationism is untenable and the costs of giving it up are not high.
-According to Midgley, to respect people we have to know enough about them to make a favorable judgment. Do you think this claim is correct? Why or why not?

Question 6

Mary Midgley: Trying Out One's New Sword
Midgley argues against a view she calls moral isolationism, which holds that we cannot understand cultures other than our own well enough to make moral judgments about them. Many people, Midgley notes, accept moral isolationism on grounds of respect and tolerance. But, according to Midgley, not only is this wrong it is entirely wrongheaded.
To test moral isolationism, Midgley introduces a custom from ancient Japanese culture. Needing to test if their newly crafted swords could cut through a person in a single blow, samurai would slice wayfarers in half. The moral isolationist is committed to holding that, given our lack of understanding of ancient Japanese culture, respect and tolerance demand we refrain from judging the samurai's testing practices.
But this verdict is, Midgley argues, mistaken on a number of fronts. First, to respect people we have to know enough about them to make a favorable judgment. Hence, Midgley maintains, the moral isolationist cannot ground her isolationism on both a lack of understanding and respect. Moreover, understanding occurs gradually; it is not all or nothing. Second, moral isolationism, Midgley claims, would undercut moral reasoning as such. For if we cannot judge other cultures, we cannot judge our own. Other societies provide the range of relevant comparison. Our moral reasoning, Midgley maintains, is made possible by looking to the practices of others. Accordingly, moral isolationism leads to a kind of moral mental suicide.
Abandoning moral isolationism, however, does not come at a high cost. We already, Midgley notes, try to justify the behavior of those we only barely understand. For example, many people's initial reaction is to try and justify the samurai's behavior. But attempting this kind of justification is an implicit denial of moral isolationism. In addition, nearly every culture is a hodgepodge of different influences, and we nonetheless morally engage with our own culture. In short, Midgley concludes that moral isolationism is untenable and the costs of giving it up are not high.
-Midgley argues that if we accept something as a serious moral truth about one culture we cannot refuse to apply it to other cultures as well. Do you find Midgley's argument for this claim compelling? Defend your answer.

Question 7

Mary Midgley: Trying Out One's New Sword
Midgley argues against a view she calls moral isolationism, which holds that we cannot understand cultures other than our own well enough to make moral judgments about them. Many people, Midgley notes, accept moral isolationism on grounds of respect and tolerance. But, according to Midgley, not only is this wrong it is entirely wrongheaded.
To test moral isolationism, Midgley introduces a custom from ancient Japanese culture. Needing to test if their newly crafted swords could cut through a person in a single blow, samurai would slice wayfarers in half. The moral isolationist is committed to holding that, given our lack of understanding of ancient Japanese culture, respect and tolerance demand we refrain from judging the samurai's testing practices.
But this verdict is, Midgley argues, mistaken on a number of fronts. First, to respect people we have to know enough about them to make a favorable judgment. Hence, Midgley maintains, the moral isolationist cannot ground her isolationism on both a lack of understanding and respect. Moreover, understanding occurs gradually; it is not all or nothing. Second, moral isolationism, Midgley claims, would undercut moral reasoning as such. For if we cannot judge other cultures, we cannot judge our own. Other societies provide the range of relevant comparison. Our moral reasoning, Midgley maintains, is made possible by looking to the practices of others. Accordingly, moral isolationism leads to a kind of moral mental suicide.
Abandoning moral isolationism, however, does not come at a high cost. We already, Midgley notes, try to justify the behavior of those we only barely understand. For example, many people's initial reaction is to try and justify the samurai's behavior. But attempting this kind of justification is an implicit denial of moral isolationism. In addition, nearly every culture is a hodgepodge of different influences, and we nonetheless morally engage with our own culture. In short, Midgley concludes that moral isolationism is untenable and the costs of giving it up are not high.
-Midgley asserts that if we cannot judge other cultures, we cannot judge our own. What reasons does she provide to support this assertion? Do you find these reasons plausible? Why or why not?

Question 8

Mary Midgley: Trying Out One's New Sword
Midgley argues against a view she calls moral isolationism, which holds that we cannot understand cultures other than our own well enough to make moral judgments about them. Many people, Midgley notes, accept moral isolationism on grounds of respect and tolerance. But, according to Midgley, not only is this wrong it is entirely wrongheaded.
To test moral isolationism, Midgley introduces a custom from ancient Japanese culture. Needing to test if their newly crafted swords could cut through a person in a single blow, samurai would slice wayfarers in half. The moral isolationist is committed to holding that, given our lack of understanding of ancient Japanese culture, respect and tolerance demand we refrain from judging the samurai's testing practices.
But this verdict is, Midgley argues, mistaken on a number of fronts. First, to respect people we have to know enough about them to make a favorable judgment. Hence, Midgley maintains, the moral isolationist cannot ground her isolationism on both a lack of understanding and respect. Moreover, understanding occurs gradually; it is not all or nothing. Second, moral isolationism, Midgley claims, would undercut moral reasoning as such. For if we cannot judge other cultures, we cannot judge our own. Other societies provide the range of relevant comparison. Our moral reasoning, Midgley maintains, is made possible by looking to the practices of others. Accordingly, moral isolationism leads to a kind of moral mental suicide.
Abandoning moral isolationism, however, does not come at a high cost. We already, Midgley notes, try to justify the behavior of those we only barely understand. For example, many people's initial reaction is to try and justify the samurai's behavior. But attempting this kind of justification is an implicit denial of moral isolationism. In addition, nearly every culture is a hodgepodge of different influences, and we nonetheless morally engage with our own culture. In short, Midgley concludes that moral isolationism is untenable and the costs of giving it up are not high.
-Midgley defines "moral isolationism" as the view that:

A) denies that we can ever understand any culture except our own well enough to make judgments about it.
B) respect and tolerance forbids us ever to take up a critical position to any other culture.
C) moral judgment is a kind of coinage valid only in its country of origin.
D) all of the above.

Question 9

Mary Midgley: Trying Out One's New Sword
Midgley argues against a view she calls moral isolationism, which holds that we cannot understand cultures other than our own well enough to make moral judgments about them. Many people, Midgley notes, accept moral isolationism on grounds of respect and tolerance. But, according to Midgley, not only is this wrong it is entirely wrongheaded.
To test moral isolationism, Midgley introduces a custom from ancient Japanese culture. Needing to test if their newly crafted swords could cut through a person in a single blow, samurai would slice wayfarers in half. The moral isolationist is committed to holding that, given our lack of understanding of ancient Japanese culture, respect and tolerance demand we refrain from judging the samurai's testing practices.
But this verdict is, Midgley argues, mistaken on a number of fronts. First, to respect people we have to know enough about them to make a favorable judgment. Hence, Midgley maintains, the moral isolationist cannot ground her isolationism on both a lack of understanding and respect. Moreover, understanding occurs gradually; it is not all or nothing. Second, moral isolationism, Midgley claims, would undercut moral reasoning as such. For if we cannot judge other cultures, we cannot judge our own. Other societies provide the range of relevant comparison. Our moral reasoning, Midgley maintains, is made possible by looking to the practices of others. Accordingly, moral isolationism leads to a kind of moral mental suicide.
Abandoning moral isolationism, however, does not come at a high cost. We already, Midgley notes, try to justify the behavior of those we only barely understand. For example, many people's initial reaction is to try and justify the samurai's behavior. But attempting this kind of justification is an implicit denial of moral isolationism. In addition, nearly every culture is a hodgepodge of different influences, and we nonetheless morally engage with our own culture. In short, Midgley concludes that moral isolationism is untenable and the costs of giving it up are not high.
-Midgley claims that to respect people:

A) we have to know enough about them to make a favorable judgment.
B) we have to be able to tolerate them within our own culture.
C) we have to know what it is like for them to live in our world.
D) we need to have experienced their "way of life."

Question 10

Mary Midgley: Trying Out One's New Sword
Midgley argues against a view she calls moral isolationism, which holds that we cannot understand cultures other than our own well enough to make moral judgments about them. Many people, Midgley notes, accept moral isolationism on grounds of respect and tolerance. But, according to Midgley, not only is this wrong it is entirely wrongheaded.
To test moral isolationism, Midgley introduces a custom from ancient Japanese culture. Needing to test if their newly crafted swords could cut through a person in a single blow, samurai would slice wayfarers in half. The moral isolationist is committed to holding that, given our lack of understanding of ancient Japanese culture, respect and tolerance demand we refrain from judging the samurai's testing practices.
But this verdict is, Midgley argues, mistaken on a number of fronts. First, to respect people we have to know enough about them to make a favorable judgment. Hence, Midgley maintains, the moral isolationist cannot ground her isolationism on both a lack of understanding and respect. Moreover, understanding occurs gradually; it is not all or nothing. Second, moral isolationism, Midgley claims, would undercut moral reasoning as such. For if we cannot judge other cultures, we cannot judge our own. Other societies provide the range of relevant comparison. Our moral reasoning, Midgley maintains, is made possible by looking to the practices of others. Accordingly, moral isolationism leads to a kind of moral mental suicide.
Abandoning moral isolationism, however, does not come at a high cost. We already, Midgley notes, try to justify the behavior of those we only barely understand. For example, many people's initial reaction is to try and justify the samurai's behavior. But attempting this kind of justification is an implicit denial of moral isolationism. In addition, nearly every culture is a hodgepodge of different influences, and we nonetheless morally engage with our own culture. In short, Midgley concludes that moral isolationism is untenable and the costs of giving it up are not high.
-The word "tsujigiri" literally means:

A) diagonal-slice.
B) crossroads-cut.
C) wayfarer-slice.
D) shoulder-to-shoulder-chop.

Question 11

Mary Midgley: Trying Out One's New Sword
Midgley argues against a view she calls moral isolationism, which holds that we cannot understand cultures other than our own well enough to make moral judgments about them. Many people, Midgley notes, accept moral isolationism on grounds of respect and tolerance. But, according to Midgley, not only is this wrong it is entirely wrongheaded.
To test moral isolationism, Midgley introduces a custom from ancient Japanese culture. Needing to test if their newly crafted swords could cut through a person in a single blow, samurai would slice wayfarers in half. The moral isolationist is committed to holding that, given our lack of understanding of ancient Japanese culture, respect and tolerance demand we refrain from judging the samurai's testing practices.
But this verdict is, Midgley argues, mistaken on a number of fronts. First, to respect people we have to know enough about them to make a favorable judgment. Hence, Midgley maintains, the moral isolationist cannot ground her isolationism on both a lack of understanding and respect. Moreover, understanding occurs gradually; it is not all or nothing. Second, moral isolationism, Midgley claims, would undercut moral reasoning as such. For if we cannot judge other cultures, we cannot judge our own. Other societies provide the range of relevant comparison. Our moral reasoning, Midgley maintains, is made possible by looking to the practices of others. Accordingly, moral isolationism leads to a kind of moral mental suicide.
Abandoning moral isolationism, however, does not come at a high cost. We already, Midgley notes, try to justify the behavior of those we only barely understand. For example, many people's initial reaction is to try and justify the samurai's behavior. But attempting this kind of justification is an implicit denial of moral isolationism. In addition, nearly every culture is a hodgepodge of different influences, and we nonetheless morally engage with our own culture. In short, Midgley concludes that moral isolationism is untenable and the costs of giving it up are not high.
-Midgley argues that it is impossible to praise or blame others, if we could not in principle:

A) criticize them.
B) understand them.
C) both a and b.
D) neither a nor b.

Question 12

Mary Midgley: Trying Out One's New Sword
Midgley argues against a view she calls moral isolationism, which holds that we cannot understand cultures other than our own well enough to make moral judgments about them. Many people, Midgley notes, accept moral isolationism on grounds of respect and tolerance. But, according to Midgley, not only is this wrong it is entirely wrongheaded.
To test moral isolationism, Midgley introduces a custom from ancient Japanese culture. Needing to test if their newly crafted swords could cut through a person in a single blow, samurai would slice wayfarers in half. The moral isolationist is committed to holding that, given our lack of understanding of ancient Japanese culture, respect and tolerance demand we refrain from judging the samurai's testing practices.
But this verdict is, Midgley argues, mistaken on a number of fronts. First, to respect people we have to know enough about them to make a favorable judgment. Hence, Midgley maintains, the moral isolationist cannot ground her isolationism on both a lack of understanding and respect. Moreover, understanding occurs gradually; it is not all or nothing. Second, moral isolationism, Midgley claims, would undercut moral reasoning as such. For if we cannot judge other cultures, we cannot judge our own. Other societies provide the range of relevant comparison. Our moral reasoning, Midgley maintains, is made possible by looking to the practices of others. Accordingly, moral isolationism leads to a kind of moral mental suicide.
Abandoning moral isolationism, however, does not come at a high cost. We already, Midgley notes, try to justify the behavior of those we only barely understand. For example, many people's initial reaction is to try and justify the samurai's behavior. But attempting this kind of justification is an implicit denial of moral isolationism. In addition, nearly every culture is a hodgepodge of different influences, and we nonetheless morally engage with our own culture. In short, Midgley concludes that moral isolationism is untenable and the costs of giving it up are not high.
-Midgley holds that "judging" means:

A) sentencing people.
B) forming an opinion.
C) condemning people.
D) praising people.

Question 13

Mary Midgley: Trying Out One's New Sword
Midgley argues against a view she calls moral isolationism, which holds that we cannot understand cultures other than our own well enough to make moral judgments about them. Many people, Midgley notes, accept moral isolationism on grounds of respect and tolerance. But, according to Midgley, not only is this wrong it is entirely wrongheaded.
To test moral isolationism, Midgley introduces a custom from ancient Japanese culture. Needing to test if their newly crafted swords could cut through a person in a single blow, samurai would slice wayfarers in half. The moral isolationist is committed to holding that, given our lack of understanding of ancient Japanese culture, respect and tolerance demand we refrain from judging the samurai's testing practices.
But this verdict is, Midgley argues, mistaken on a number of fronts. First, to respect people we have to know enough about them to make a favorable judgment. Hence, Midgley maintains, the moral isolationist cannot ground her isolationism on both a lack of understanding and respect. Moreover, understanding occurs gradually; it is not all or nothing. Second, moral isolationism, Midgley claims, would undercut moral reasoning as such. For if we cannot judge other cultures, we cannot judge our own. Other societies provide the range of relevant comparison. Our moral reasoning, Midgley maintains, is made possible by looking to the practices of others. Accordingly, moral isolationism leads to a kind of moral mental suicide.
Abandoning moral isolationism, however, does not come at a high cost. We already, Midgley notes, try to justify the behavior of those we only barely understand. For example, many people's initial reaction is to try and justify the samurai's behavior. But attempting this kind of justification is an implicit denial of moral isolationism. In addition, nearly every culture is a hodgepodge of different influences, and we nonetheless morally engage with our own culture. In short, Midgley concludes that moral isolationism is untenable and the costs of giving it up are not high.
-According to Midgley, if we can't judge other cultures we cannot judge our own because:

A) other societies provide the range of comparison.
B) we rely on the judgments of other societies.
C) both a and b.
D) neither a nor b.

Question 14

Mary Midgley: Trying Out One's New Sword
Midgley argues against a view she calls moral isolationism, which holds that we cannot understand cultures other than our own well enough to make moral judgments about them. Many people, Midgley notes, accept moral isolationism on grounds of respect and tolerance. But, according to Midgley, not only is this wrong it is entirely wrongheaded.
To test moral isolationism, Midgley introduces a custom from ancient Japanese culture. Needing to test if their newly crafted swords could cut through a person in a single blow, samurai would slice wayfarers in half. The moral isolationist is committed to holding that, given our lack of understanding of ancient Japanese culture, respect and tolerance demand we refrain from judging the samurai's testing practices.
But this verdict is, Midgley argues, mistaken on a number of fronts. First, to respect people we have to know enough about them to make a favorable judgment. Hence, Midgley maintains, the moral isolationist cannot ground her isolationism on both a lack of understanding and respect. Moreover, understanding occurs gradually; it is not all or nothing. Second, moral isolationism, Midgley claims, would undercut moral reasoning as such. For if we cannot judge other cultures, we cannot judge our own. Other societies provide the range of relevant comparison. Our moral reasoning, Midgley maintains, is made possible by looking to the practices of others. Accordingly, moral isolationism leads to a kind of moral mental suicide.
Abandoning moral isolationism, however, does not come at a high cost. We already, Midgley notes, try to justify the behavior of those we only barely understand. For example, many people's initial reaction is to try and justify the samurai's behavior. But attempting this kind of justification is an implicit denial of moral isolationism. In addition, nearly every culture is a hodgepodge of different influences, and we nonetheless morally engage with our own culture. In short, Midgley concludes that moral isolationism is untenable and the costs of giving it up are not high.
-Midgley maintains that moral isolationism would lay down a general ban on:

A) moral reasoning.
B) moral communication.
C) moral disagreement.
D) moral agreement.

Question 15

Mary Midgley: Trying Out One's New Sword
Midgley argues against a view she calls moral isolationism, which holds that we cannot understand cultures other than our own well enough to make moral judgments about them. Many people, Midgley notes, accept moral isolationism on grounds of respect and tolerance. But, according to Midgley, not only is this wrong it is entirely wrongheaded.
To test moral isolationism, Midgley introduces a custom from ancient Japanese culture. Needing to test if their newly crafted swords could cut through a person in a single blow, samurai would slice wayfarers in half. The moral isolationist is committed to holding that, given our lack of understanding of ancient Japanese culture, respect and tolerance demand we refrain from judging the samurai's testing practices.
But this verdict is, Midgley argues, mistaken on a number of fronts. First, to respect people we have to know enough about them to make a favorable judgment. Hence, Midgley maintains, the moral isolationist cannot ground her isolationism on both a lack of understanding and respect. Moreover, understanding occurs gradually; it is not all or nothing. Second, moral isolationism, Midgley claims, would undercut moral reasoning as such. For if we cannot judge other cultures, we cannot judge our own. Other societies provide the range of relevant comparison. Our moral reasoning, Midgley maintains, is made possible by looking to the practices of others. Accordingly, moral isolationism leads to a kind of moral mental suicide.
Abandoning moral isolationism, however, does not come at a high cost. We already, Midgley notes, try to justify the behavior of those we only barely understand. For example, many people's initial reaction is to try and justify the samurai's behavior. But attempting this kind of justification is an implicit denial of moral isolationism. In addition, nearly every culture is a hodgepodge of different influences, and we nonetheless morally engage with our own culture. In short, Midgley concludes that moral isolationism is untenable and the costs of giving it up are not high.
-Midgley claims that when we judge something to be bad or good, better or worse than something else:

A) we are taking it as something to promote or preserve.
B) we are taking it as an example to aim at or avoid.
C) we are making a moral mistake.
D) our statements are meaningless.

Question 16

Mary Midgley: Trying Out One's New Sword
Midgley argues against a view she calls moral isolationism, which holds that we cannot understand cultures other than our own well enough to make moral judgments about them. Many people, Midgley notes, accept moral isolationism on grounds of respect and tolerance. But, according to Midgley, not only is this wrong it is entirely wrongheaded.
To test moral isolationism, Midgley introduces a custom from ancient Japanese culture. Needing to test if their newly crafted swords could cut through a person in a single blow, samurai would slice wayfarers in half. The moral isolationist is committed to holding that, given our lack of understanding of ancient Japanese culture, respect and tolerance demand we refrain from judging the samurai's testing practices.
But this verdict is, Midgley argues, mistaken on a number of fronts. First, to respect people we have to know enough about them to make a favorable judgment. Hence, Midgley maintains, the moral isolationist cannot ground her isolationism on both a lack of understanding and respect. Moreover, understanding occurs gradually; it is not all or nothing. Second, moral isolationism, Midgley claims, would undercut moral reasoning as such. For if we cannot judge other cultures, we cannot judge our own. Other societies provide the range of relevant comparison. Our moral reasoning, Midgley maintains, is made possible by looking to the practices of others. Accordingly, moral isolationism leads to a kind of moral mental suicide.
Abandoning moral isolationism, however, does not come at a high cost. We already, Midgley notes, try to justify the behavior of those we only barely understand. For example, many people's initial reaction is to try and justify the samurai's behavior. But attempting this kind of justification is an implicit denial of moral isolationism. In addition, nearly every culture is a hodgepodge of different influences, and we nonetheless morally engage with our own culture. In short, Midgley concludes that moral isolationism is untenable and the costs of giving it up are not high.
-Midgley holds that we are rightly angry with those who:

A) despise other cultures.
B) oppress other cultures.
C) steamroll other cultures.
D) all of the above.

Question 17

Mary Midgley: Trying Out One's New Sword
Midgley argues against a view she calls moral isolationism, which holds that we cannot understand cultures other than our own well enough to make moral judgments about them. Many people, Midgley notes, accept moral isolationism on grounds of respect and tolerance. But, according to Midgley, not only is this wrong it is entirely wrongheaded.
To test moral isolationism, Midgley introduces a custom from ancient Japanese culture. Needing to test if their newly crafted swords could cut through a person in a single blow, samurai would slice wayfarers in half. The moral isolationist is committed to holding that, given our lack of understanding of ancient Japanese culture, respect and tolerance demand we refrain from judging the samurai's testing practices.
But this verdict is, Midgley argues, mistaken on a number of fronts. First, to respect people we have to know enough about them to make a favorable judgment. Hence, Midgley maintains, the moral isolationist cannot ground her isolationism on both a lack of understanding and respect. Moreover, understanding occurs gradually; it is not all or nothing. Second, moral isolationism, Midgley claims, would undercut moral reasoning as such. For if we cannot judge other cultures, we cannot judge our own. Other societies provide the range of relevant comparison. Our moral reasoning, Midgley maintains, is made possible by looking to the practices of others. Accordingly, moral isolationism leads to a kind of moral mental suicide.
Abandoning moral isolationism, however, does not come at a high cost. We already, Midgley notes, try to justify the behavior of those we only barely understand. For example, many people's initial reaction is to try and justify the samurai's behavior. But attempting this kind of justification is an implicit denial of moral isolationism. In addition, nearly every culture is a hodgepodge of different influences, and we nonetheless morally engage with our own culture. In short, Midgley concludes that moral isolationism is untenable and the costs of giving it up are not high.
-According to Midgley, we could not condemn insolence if we thought that:

A) our condemnations were just quirks of our own culture.
B) Nietzsche was right.
C) non-cognitivists were right.
D) none of the above.

Question 18

Mary Midgley: Trying Out One's New Sword
Midgley argues against a view she calls moral isolationism, which holds that we cannot understand cultures other than our own well enough to make moral judgments about them. Many people, Midgley notes, accept moral isolationism on grounds of respect and tolerance. But, according to Midgley, not only is this wrong it is entirely wrongheaded.
To test moral isolationism, Midgley introduces a custom from ancient Japanese culture. Needing to test if their newly crafted swords could cut through a person in a single blow, samurai would slice wayfarers in half. The moral isolationist is committed to holding that, given our lack of understanding of ancient Japanese culture, respect and tolerance demand we refrain from judging the samurai's testing practices.
But this verdict is, Midgley argues, mistaken on a number of fronts. First, to respect people we have to know enough about them to make a favorable judgment. Hence, Midgley maintains, the moral isolationist cannot ground her isolationism on both a lack of understanding and respect. Moreover, understanding occurs gradually; it is not all or nothing. Second, moral isolationism, Midgley claims, would undercut moral reasoning as such. For if we cannot judge other cultures, we cannot judge our own. Other societies provide the range of relevant comparison. Our moral reasoning, Midgley maintains, is made possible by looking to the practices of others. Accordingly, moral isolationism leads to a kind of moral mental suicide.
Abandoning moral isolationism, however, does not come at a high cost. We already, Midgley notes, try to justify the behavior of those we only barely understand. For example, many people's initial reaction is to try and justify the samurai's behavior. But attempting this kind of justification is an implicit denial of moral isolationism. In addition, nearly every culture is a hodgepodge of different influences, and we nonetheless morally engage with our own culture. In short, Midgley concludes that moral isolationism is untenable and the costs of giving it up are not high.
-Midgley argues that when someone protests that another has no right to criticize, say, the bisecting Samurai, he usually:

A) will try to move the conversation back to our own culture.
B) will try and show why we have no such right.
C) will try and justify the Samurai.
D) will try to explain why he would have done the same as the Samurai.

Question 19

Mary Midgley: Trying Out One's New Sword
Midgley argues against a view she calls moral isolationism, which holds that we cannot understand cultures other than our own well enough to make moral judgments about them. Many people, Midgley notes, accept moral isolationism on grounds of respect and tolerance. But, according to Midgley, not only is this wrong it is entirely wrongheaded.
To test moral isolationism, Midgley introduces a custom from ancient Japanese culture. Needing to test if their newly crafted swords could cut through a person in a single blow, samurai would slice wayfarers in half. The moral isolationist is committed to holding that, given our lack of understanding of ancient Japanese culture, respect and tolerance demand we refrain from judging the samurai's testing practices.
But this verdict is, Midgley argues, mistaken on a number of fronts. First, to respect people we have to know enough about them to make a favorable judgment. Hence, Midgley maintains, the moral isolationist cannot ground her isolationism on both a lack of understanding and respect. Moreover, understanding occurs gradually; it is not all or nothing. Second, moral isolationism, Midgley claims, would undercut moral reasoning as such. For if we cannot judge other cultures, we cannot judge our own. Other societies provide the range of relevant comparison. Our moral reasoning, Midgley maintains, is made possible by looking to the practices of others. Accordingly, moral isolationism leads to a kind of moral mental suicide.
Abandoning moral isolationism, however, does not come at a high cost. We already, Midgley notes, try to justify the behavior of those we only barely understand. For example, many people's initial reaction is to try and justify the samurai's behavior. But attempting this kind of justification is an implicit denial of moral isolationism. In addition, nearly every culture is a hodgepodge of different influences, and we nonetheless morally engage with our own culture. In short, Midgley concludes that moral isolationism is untenable and the costs of giving it up are not high.
-Midgley maintains that if we accept something as a serious moral truth about one culture:

A) we cannot refuse to apply it to other cultures as well.
B) we need not apply it to other cultures as well.
C) we may permissibly apply it to other similar cultures.
D) we act impermissibly by apply it to other cultures.

Question 20

Mary Midgley: Trying Out One's New Sword
Midgley argues against a view she calls moral isolationism, which holds that we cannot understand cultures other than our own well enough to make moral judgments about them. Many people, Midgley notes, accept moral isolationism on grounds of respect and tolerance. But, according to Midgley, not only is this wrong it is entirely wrongheaded.
To test moral isolationism, Midgley introduces a custom from ancient Japanese culture. Needing to test if their newly crafted swords could cut through a person in a single blow, samurai would slice wayfarers in half. The moral isolationist is committed to holding that, given our lack of understanding of ancient Japanese culture, respect and tolerance demand we refrain from judging the samurai's testing practices.
But this verdict is, Midgley argues, mistaken on a number of fronts. First, to respect people we have to know enough about them to make a favorable judgment. Hence, Midgley maintains, the moral isolationist cannot ground her isolationism on both a lack of understanding and respect. Moreover, understanding occurs gradually; it is not all or nothing. Second, moral isolationism, Midgley claims, would undercut moral reasoning as such. For if we cannot judge other cultures, we cannot judge our own. Other societies provide the range of relevant comparison. Our moral reasoning, Midgley maintains, is made possible by looking to the practices of others. Accordingly, moral isolationism leads to a kind of moral mental suicide.
Abandoning moral isolationism, however, does not come at a high cost. We already, Midgley notes, try to justify the behavior of those we only barely understand. For example, many people's initial reaction is to try and justify the samurai's behavior. But attempting this kind of justification is an implicit denial of moral isolationism. In addition, nearly every culture is a hodgepodge of different influences, and we nonetheless morally engage with our own culture. In short, Midgley concludes that moral isolationism is untenable and the costs of giving it up are not high.
-According to Midgley, we can come to see other societies better by:

A) making their questions our own.
B) recognizing that their questions are really forms of the questions which we are asking already.
C) both a and b.
D) neither a nor b.

Question 21

Mary Midgley: Trying Out One's New Sword
Midgley argues against a view she calls moral isolationism, which holds that we cannot understand cultures other than our own well enough to make moral judgments about them. Many people, Midgley notes, accept moral isolationism on grounds of respect and tolerance. But, according to Midgley, not only is this wrong it is entirely wrongheaded.
To test moral isolationism, Midgley introduces a custom from ancient Japanese culture. Needing to test if their newly crafted swords could cut through a person in a single blow, samurai would slice wayfarers in half. The moral isolationist is committed to holding that, given our lack of understanding of ancient Japanese culture, respect and tolerance demand we refrain from judging the samurai's testing practices.
But this verdict is, Midgley argues, mistaken on a number of fronts. First, to respect people we have to know enough about them to make a favorable judgment. Hence, Midgley maintains, the moral isolationist cannot ground her isolationism on both a lack of understanding and respect. Moreover, understanding occurs gradually; it is not all or nothing. Second, moral isolationism, Midgley claims, would undercut moral reasoning as such. For if we cannot judge other cultures, we cannot judge our own. Other societies provide the range of relevant comparison. Our moral reasoning, Midgley maintains, is made possible by looking to the practices of others. Accordingly, moral isolationism leads to a kind of moral mental suicide.
Abandoning moral isolationism, however, does not come at a high cost. We already, Midgley notes, try to justify the behavior of those we only barely understand. For example, many people's initial reaction is to try and justify the samurai's behavior. But attempting this kind of justification is an implicit denial of moral isolationism. In addition, nearly every culture is a hodgepodge of different influences, and we nonetheless morally engage with our own culture. In short, Midgley concludes that moral isolationism is untenable and the costs of giving it up are not high.
-Midgley claims that cultures are:

A) no sealed box.
B) a fertile jungle of different influences.
C) formed out of many streams.
D) all of the above.

Question 22

Mary Midgley: Trying Out One's New Sword
Midgley argues against a view she calls moral isolationism, which holds that we cannot understand cultures other than our own well enough to make moral judgments about them. Many people, Midgley notes, accept moral isolationism on grounds of respect and tolerance. But, according to Midgley, not only is this wrong it is entirely wrongheaded.
To test moral isolationism, Midgley introduces a custom from ancient Japanese culture. Needing to test if their newly crafted swords could cut through a person in a single blow, samurai would slice wayfarers in half. The moral isolationist is committed to holding that, given our lack of understanding of ancient Japanese culture, respect and tolerance demand we refrain from judging the samurai's testing practices.
But this verdict is, Midgley argues, mistaken on a number of fronts. First, to respect people we have to know enough about them to make a favorable judgment. Hence, Midgley maintains, the moral isolationist cannot ground her isolationism on both a lack of understanding and respect. Moreover, understanding occurs gradually; it is not all or nothing. Second, moral isolationism, Midgley claims, would undercut moral reasoning as such. For if we cannot judge other cultures, we cannot judge our own. Other societies provide the range of relevant comparison. Our moral reasoning, Midgley maintains, is made possible by looking to the practices of others. Accordingly, moral isolationism leads to a kind of moral mental suicide.
Abandoning moral isolationism, however, does not come at a high cost. We already, Midgley notes, try to justify the behavior of those we only barely understand. For example, many people's initial reaction is to try and justify the samurai's behavior. But attempting this kind of justification is an implicit denial of moral isolationism. In addition, nearly every culture is a hodgepodge of different influences, and we nonetheless morally engage with our own culture. In short, Midgley concludes that moral isolationism is untenable and the costs of giving it up are not high.
-According to Midgley, people normally adopt moral isolationism because they think it is a respectful attitude to other cultures.

Question 23

Mary Midgley: Trying Out One's New Sword
Midgley argues against a view she calls moral isolationism, which holds that we cannot understand cultures other than our own well enough to make moral judgments about them. Many people, Midgley notes, accept moral isolationism on grounds of respect and tolerance. But, according to Midgley, not only is this wrong it is entirely wrongheaded.
To test moral isolationism, Midgley introduces a custom from ancient Japanese culture. Needing to test if their newly crafted swords could cut through a person in a single blow, samurai would slice wayfarers in half. The moral isolationist is committed to holding that, given our lack of understanding of ancient Japanese culture, respect and tolerance demand we refrain from judging the samurai's testing practices.
But this verdict is, Midgley argues, mistaken on a number of fronts. First, to respect people we have to know enough about them to make a favorable judgment. Hence, Midgley maintains, the moral isolationist cannot ground her isolationism on both a lack of understanding and respect. Moreover, understanding occurs gradually; it is not all or nothing. Second, moral isolationism, Midgley claims, would undercut moral reasoning as such. For if we cannot judge other cultures, we cannot judge our own. Other societies provide the range of relevant comparison. Our moral reasoning, Midgley maintains, is made possible by looking to the practices of others. Accordingly, moral isolationism leads to a kind of moral mental suicide.
Abandoning moral isolationism, however, does not come at a high cost. We already, Midgley notes, try to justify the behavior of those we only barely understand. For example, many people's initial reaction is to try and justify the samurai's behavior. But attempting this kind of justification is an implicit denial of moral isolationism. In addition, nearly every culture is a hodgepodge of different influences, and we nonetheless morally engage with our own culture. In short, Midgley concludes that moral isolationism is untenable and the costs of giving it up are not high.
-Midgley claims that nobody can respect what is entirely unintelligible to them.

Question 24

Mary Midgley: Trying Out One's New Sword
Midgley argues against a view she calls moral isolationism, which holds that we cannot understand cultures other than our own well enough to make moral judgments about them. Many people, Midgley notes, accept moral isolationism on grounds of respect and tolerance. But, according to Midgley, not only is this wrong it is entirely wrongheaded.
To test moral isolationism, Midgley introduces a custom from ancient Japanese culture. Needing to test if their newly crafted swords could cut through a person in a single blow, samurai would slice wayfarers in half. The moral isolationist is committed to holding that, given our lack of understanding of ancient Japanese culture, respect and tolerance demand we refrain from judging the samurai's testing practices.
But this verdict is, Midgley argues, mistaken on a number of fronts. First, to respect people we have to know enough about them to make a favorable judgment. Hence, Midgley maintains, the moral isolationist cannot ground her isolationism on both a lack of understanding and respect. Moreover, understanding occurs gradually; it is not all or nothing. Second, moral isolationism, Midgley claims, would undercut moral reasoning as such. For if we cannot judge other cultures, we cannot judge our own. Other societies provide the range of relevant comparison. Our moral reasoning, Midgley maintains, is made possible by looking to the practices of others. Accordingly, moral isolationism leads to a kind of moral mental suicide.
Abandoning moral isolationism, however, does not come at a high cost. We already, Midgley notes, try to justify the behavior of those we only barely understand. For example, many people's initial reaction is to try and justify the samurai's behavior. But attempting this kind of justification is an implicit denial of moral isolationism. In addition, nearly every culture is a hodgepodge of different influences, and we nonetheless morally engage with our own culture. In short, Midgley concludes that moral isolationism is untenable and the costs of giving it up are not high.
-Midgley argues that it is possible to be a moral isolationist, but it is a highly implausible position.

Question 25

Mary Midgley: Trying Out One's New Sword
Midgley argues against a view she calls moral isolationism, which holds that we cannot understand cultures other than our own well enough to make moral judgments about them. Many people, Midgley notes, accept moral isolationism on grounds of respect and tolerance. But, according to Midgley, not only is this wrong it is entirely wrongheaded.
To test moral isolationism, Midgley introduces a custom from ancient Japanese culture. Needing to test if their newly crafted swords could cut through a person in a single blow, samurai would slice wayfarers in half. The moral isolationist is committed to holding that, given our lack of understanding of ancient Japanese culture, respect and tolerance demand we refrain from judging the samurai's testing practices.
But this verdict is, Midgley argues, mistaken on a number of fronts. First, to respect people we have to know enough about them to make a favorable judgment. Hence, Midgley maintains, the moral isolationist cannot ground her isolationism on both a lack of understanding and respect. Moreover, understanding occurs gradually; it is not all or nothing. Second, moral isolationism, Midgley claims, would undercut moral reasoning as such. For if we cannot judge other cultures, we cannot judge our own. Other societies provide the range of relevant comparison. Our moral reasoning, Midgley maintains, is made possible by looking to the practices of others. Accordingly, moral isolationism leads to a kind of moral mental suicide.
Abandoning moral isolationism, however, does not come at a high cost. We already, Midgley notes, try to justify the behavior of those we only barely understand. For example, many people's initial reaction is to try and justify the samurai's behavior. But attempting this kind of justification is an implicit denial of moral isolationism. In addition, nearly every culture is a hodgepodge of different influences, and we nonetheless morally engage with our own culture. In short, Midgley concludes that moral isolationism is untenable and the costs of giving it up are not high.
-According to Midgley, understanding is an all-or-nothing matter.

Question 26

Mary Midgley: Trying Out One's New Sword
Midgley argues against a view she calls moral isolationism, which holds that we cannot understand cultures other than our own well enough to make moral judgments about them. Many people, Midgley notes, accept moral isolationism on grounds of respect and tolerance. But, according to Midgley, not only is this wrong it is entirely wrongheaded.
To test moral isolationism, Midgley introduces a custom from ancient Japanese culture. Needing to test if their newly crafted swords could cut through a person in a single blow, samurai would slice wayfarers in half. The moral isolationist is committed to holding that, given our lack of understanding of ancient Japanese culture, respect and tolerance demand we refrain from judging the samurai's testing practices.
But this verdict is, Midgley argues, mistaken on a number of fronts. First, to respect people we have to know enough about them to make a favorable judgment. Hence, Midgley maintains, the moral isolationist cannot ground her isolationism on both a lack of understanding and respect. Moreover, understanding occurs gradually; it is not all or nothing. Second, moral isolationism, Midgley claims, would undercut moral reasoning as such. For if we cannot judge other cultures, we cannot judge our own. Other societies provide the range of relevant comparison. Our moral reasoning, Midgley maintains, is made possible by looking to the practices of others. Accordingly, moral isolationism leads to a kind of moral mental suicide.
Abandoning moral isolationism, however, does not come at a high cost. We already, Midgley notes, try to justify the behavior of those we only barely understand. For example, many people's initial reaction is to try and justify the samurai's behavior. But attempting this kind of justification is an implicit denial of moral isolationism. In addition, nearly every culture is a hodgepodge of different influences, and we nonetheless morally engage with our own culture. In short, Midgley concludes that moral isolationism is untenable and the costs of giving it up are not high.
-Midgley claims that we fully understand our own culture

Question 27

Mary Midgley: Trying Out One's New Sword
Midgley argues against a view she calls moral isolationism, which holds that we cannot understand cultures other than our own well enough to make moral judgments about them. Many people, Midgley notes, accept moral isolationism on grounds of respect and tolerance. But, according to Midgley, not only is this wrong it is entirely wrongheaded.
To test moral isolationism, Midgley introduces a custom from ancient Japanese culture. Needing to test if their newly crafted swords could cut through a person in a single blow, samurai would slice wayfarers in half. The moral isolationist is committed to holding that, given our lack of understanding of ancient Japanese culture, respect and tolerance demand we refrain from judging the samurai's testing practices.
But this verdict is, Midgley argues, mistaken on a number of fronts. First, to respect people we have to know enough about them to make a favorable judgment. Hence, Midgley maintains, the moral isolationist cannot ground her isolationism on both a lack of understanding and respect. Moreover, understanding occurs gradually; it is not all or nothing. Second, moral isolationism, Midgley claims, would undercut moral reasoning as such. For if we cannot judge other cultures, we cannot judge our own. Other societies provide the range of relevant comparison. Our moral reasoning, Midgley maintains, is made possible by looking to the practices of others. Accordingly, moral isolationism leads to a kind of moral mental suicide.
Abandoning moral isolationism, however, does not come at a high cost. We already, Midgley notes, try to justify the behavior of those we only barely understand. For example, many people's initial reaction is to try and justify the samurai's behavior. But attempting this kind of justification is an implicit denial of moral isolationism. In addition, nearly every culture is a hodgepodge of different influences, and we nonetheless morally engage with our own culture. In short, Midgley concludes that moral isolationism is untenable and the costs of giving it up are not high.
-In Midgley's view, we may need to praise things which we do not fully understand.

Question 28

Mary Midgley: Trying Out One's New Sword
Midgley argues against a view she calls moral isolationism, which holds that we cannot understand cultures other than our own well enough to make moral judgments about them. Many people, Midgley notes, accept moral isolationism on grounds of respect and tolerance. But, according to Midgley, not only is this wrong it is entirely wrongheaded.
To test moral isolationism, Midgley introduces a custom from ancient Japanese culture. Needing to test if their newly crafted swords could cut through a person in a single blow, samurai would slice wayfarers in half. The moral isolationist is committed to holding that, given our lack of understanding of ancient Japanese culture, respect and tolerance demand we refrain from judging the samurai's testing practices.
But this verdict is, Midgley argues, mistaken on a number of fronts. First, to respect people we have to know enough about them to make a favorable judgment. Hence, Midgley maintains, the moral isolationist cannot ground her isolationism on both a lack of understanding and respect. Moreover, understanding occurs gradually; it is not all or nothing. Second, moral isolationism, Midgley claims, would undercut moral reasoning as such. For if we cannot judge other cultures, we cannot judge our own. Other societies provide the range of relevant comparison. Our moral reasoning, Midgley maintains, is made possible by looking to the practices of others. Accordingly, moral isolationism leads to a kind of moral mental suicide.
Abandoning moral isolationism, however, does not come at a high cost. We already, Midgley notes, try to justify the behavior of those we only barely understand. For example, many people's initial reaction is to try and justify the samurai's behavior. But attempting this kind of justification is an implicit denial of moral isolationism. In addition, nearly every culture is a hodgepodge of different influences, and we nonetheless morally engage with our own culture. In short, Midgley concludes that moral isolationism is untenable and the costs of giving it up are not high.
-According to Midgley, moral isolationism robs us of the chance of profiting by other people's insights or mistakes.

Question 29

Mary Midgley: Trying Out One's New Sword
Midgley argues against a view she calls moral isolationism, which holds that we cannot understand cultures other than our own well enough to make moral judgments about them. Many people, Midgley notes, accept moral isolationism on grounds of respect and tolerance. But, according to Midgley, not only is this wrong it is entirely wrongheaded.
To test moral isolationism, Midgley introduces a custom from ancient Japanese culture. Needing to test if their newly crafted swords could cut through a person in a single blow, samurai would slice wayfarers in half. The moral isolationist is committed to holding that, given our lack of understanding of ancient Japanese culture, respect and tolerance demand we refrain from judging the samurai's testing practices.
But this verdict is, Midgley argues, mistaken on a number of fronts. First, to respect people we have to know enough about them to make a favorable judgment. Hence, Midgley maintains, the moral isolationist cannot ground her isolationism on both a lack of understanding and respect. Moreover, understanding occurs gradually; it is not all or nothing. Second, moral isolationism, Midgley claims, would undercut moral reasoning as such. For if we cannot judge other cultures, we cannot judge our own. Other societies provide the range of relevant comparison. Our moral reasoning, Midgley maintains, is made possible by looking to the practices of others. Accordingly, moral isolationism leads to a kind of moral mental suicide.
Abandoning moral isolationism, however, does not come at a high cost. We already, Midgley notes, try to justify the behavior of those we only barely understand. For example, many people's initial reaction is to try and justify the samurai's behavior. But attempting this kind of justification is an implicit denial of moral isolationism. In addition, nearly every culture is a hodgepodge of different influences, and we nonetheless morally engage with our own culture. In short, Midgley concludes that moral isolationism is untenable and the costs of giving it up are not high.
-Midgley asserts that moral isolationism flows from apathy.

Question 30

Mary Midgley: Trying Out One's New Sword
Midgley argues against a view she calls moral isolationism, which holds that we cannot understand cultures other than our own well enough to make moral judgments about them. Many people, Midgley notes, accept moral isolationism on grounds of respect and tolerance. But, according to Midgley, not only is this wrong it is entirely wrongheaded.
To test moral isolationism, Midgley introduces a custom from ancient Japanese culture. Needing to test if their newly crafted swords could cut through a person in a single blow, samurai would slice wayfarers in half. The moral isolationist is committed to holding that, given our lack of understanding of ancient Japanese culture, respect and tolerance demand we refrain from judging the samurai's testing practices.
But this verdict is, Midgley argues, mistaken on a number of fronts. First, to respect people we have to know enough about them to make a favorable judgment. Hence, Midgley maintains, the moral isolationist cannot ground her isolationism on both a lack of understanding and respect. Moreover, understanding occurs gradually; it is not all or nothing. Second, moral isolationism, Midgley claims, would undercut moral reasoning as such. For if we cannot judge other cultures, we cannot judge our own. Other societies provide the range of relevant comparison. Our moral reasoning, Midgley maintains, is made possible by looking to the practices of others. Accordingly, moral isolationism leads to a kind of moral mental suicide.
Abandoning moral isolationism, however, does not come at a high cost. We already, Midgley notes, try to justify the behavior of those we only barely understand. For example, many people's initial reaction is to try and justify the samurai's behavior. But attempting this kind of justification is an implicit denial of moral isolationism. In addition, nearly every culture is a hodgepodge of different influences, and we nonetheless morally engage with our own culture. In short, Midgley concludes that moral isolationism is untenable and the costs of giving it up are not high.
-Midgley claims that moral skepticism could lead only to our losing all interest in moral questions, most of all in those which concern other societies.