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

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Answer of 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?