In the last post, I explained W.K. Clifford’s side of the
morality argument with William James. James believed that beliefs can be moral if they are live (a belief you would
reasonably have), forced (being forced to choose an option), and momentous (a
belief that changes the outcome of your life). His version of a moral
belief almost explicitly backed his belief in God. His entire argument relied
on providing two options for each of his points.
The live portion of the argument referred to holding a
reasonable belief. Suppose that you have never eaten carrot cake. You like
carrots and you like cake as two separate items. According to James’s argument,
you would enjoy the carrot cake. This is a logical fallacy. Realistically, you
would not know if you like carrot cake without first trying a carrot cake. It
could be that the carrot cake prepared for you was unappetizing, and you
believe that you do not like carrot cake. It could be that you just do not like
carrot cake after trying it for no particular reason. Another possibility is
that you like one person’s carrot cake recipe over someone else’s carrot cake
recipe. The counterpart of a live option is a dead option wherein you would not
reasonably hold a belief. For example, you would probably not like a cake made
of teeth.
The forced portion of the argument referred to making a
choice. If you are presented with a cake, and you refuse to eat the cake, then
you are being forced to make a make the choice of eating the cake. If you
choose to eat the cake, then you are forced to make the decision. Eating the
cake and then not eating it is still being forced to make the decision. An
unforced decision would be a decision that you would make later but is not
permanent at the moment. If you decide to eat cake tomorrow, then you are not
being forced to make that decision in the presence. This is also a logical
fallacy because you can make immoral actions while being forced to act, like
the Nazi soldiers who followed orders during the Holocaust.
The momentous portion of the argument refers to making decisions
that change the outcome of your life. The belief in the Judeo-Christian God can
be life-changing. When a person first believes in God, their life is radically
changed. A trivial decision does not change the outcome of your life, like
choosing what kind of salad to eat. This is fallacious because an event as
trivial as choosing to go somewhere over another could be life-saving. For example,
deciding to go to grocery shopping in the morning seems trivial, but getting
into a car crash on the way is momentous. Some choices seem trivial, but other
people have lives too and their choices affect your life.
Links:
James's argument in Will to Believe is actually a lot more sophisticated and subtle than the trivializing carrot cake analogy implies. There's nothing momentous about cake, no matter how much you like it. James is talking about momentous possibilities in advance of choice situations, not as determined after the fact.
ReplyDeleteBut, you get moral credit for having the courage to say that your professor's favorite philosopher produced a sucky argument - even if you're wrong.