This one is going to require some further pondering... this idea that consideration of moral ideals is inherently problematic seems to me to dismiss the kind of moral philosophy conducted in good faith and to great effect by Kant (for whom maxims still possessed a role) with the same stroke that Elizabeth Anscombe excoriated consequentialism (that we did not, but should have, heeded). I do not think conflating these different approaches to moral thought will be entirely helpful.
Small erratum: you wrote (logically) 'Isle of White', but having been raised there I have a duty to inform you that it is 'Isle of Wight'.
Sorry if that wasn't clear - Oakeshott didn't say that consideration of moral ideals is inherently problematic. He thought it to be an important way of correcting the tendency for moral habit to stray into superstition and prejudice. His concern was that the consideration of moral ideals would become lionised as the only 'real' form of morality - which it largely has been, to the detrimental consequences he identified.
Thanks for this clarification, which is important. My own moral philosophy has stressed that the danger with consequentialism isn't that it considers outcomes - these are always important - but by removing considerations of duty/rules and virtue, it creates an absurd imaginary landscape for moral thought where fanciful assumptions leave to appalling results. This, it seems, ties directly into Oakeshott's objection. Thanks for making this clear!
Yeah, I think there is a connection there to the basic absurdity lying at the heart of utilitarianism and by extension the whole 'effective altruism' movement.
Aye, although 'effective altruism' swiftly became a cover for colonial philanthropy. What was advertised as billionaires giving their money away turned into the ultrawealthy creating untaxed entities to deploy their money in building pocket empires that assert their will upon the planet. I have suggested previously that the only kind of 'charity' we should accept from the onepercenters is the restoration of the commons (of any and all kinds). Everything else they do 'for our benefit' we ought to find morally repugnant.
I don't think the slobs in adult babygrows slouching around clutching vapes and burgers give any thought to anything - modern people seem to be completely reactive rather than proactive. Some yoof on TikTok suggests raiding Oxford Street for no apparent reason - well who cares and why not?
I think it all stems from the "permissive '60s" where the old rules were thrown out in favour of turning on and tuning out. Young adults in the 1960s didn't think discipline was good for children - I was at school in the late '60s/early '70s and we were expected to "discover" our multiplication tables, weren't taught grammar because "it stifles creativity" and spent many school hours doing nothing as the teachers were generally on strike. They got rid of grammar schools and turned education into a lowest common denominator experience. They stopped bothering with religion and church. They started having spare cash and being able to buy luxuries. They were rude and dismissive of previous generations. Why is anyone surprised that their grandchildren have no concept of self-control, self-discipline, good manners?
Good stuff! Thanks for the link to Oakeshott.
By the way, there is a typo here:
"We have a critique for every traditional more, from marriage to the family to punctuality to prudence".
The singular of the Latin "mores" ("customs") is "mos".
This one is going to require some further pondering... this idea that consideration of moral ideals is inherently problematic seems to me to dismiss the kind of moral philosophy conducted in good faith and to great effect by Kant (for whom maxims still possessed a role) with the same stroke that Elizabeth Anscombe excoriated consequentialism (that we did not, but should have, heeded). I do not think conflating these different approaches to moral thought will be entirely helpful.
Small erratum: you wrote (logically) 'Isle of White', but having been raised there I have a duty to inform you that it is 'Isle of Wight'.
Sorry if that wasn't clear - Oakeshott didn't say that consideration of moral ideals is inherently problematic. He thought it to be an important way of correcting the tendency for moral habit to stray into superstition and prejudice. His concern was that the consideration of moral ideals would become lionised as the only 'real' form of morality - which it largely has been, to the detrimental consequences he identified.
Thanks for this clarification, which is important. My own moral philosophy has stressed that the danger with consequentialism isn't that it considers outcomes - these are always important - but by removing considerations of duty/rules and virtue, it creates an absurd imaginary landscape for moral thought where fanciful assumptions leave to appalling results. This, it seems, ties directly into Oakeshott's objection. Thanks for making this clear!
Yeah, I think there is a connection there to the basic absurdity lying at the heart of utilitarianism and by extension the whole 'effective altruism' movement.
Aye, although 'effective altruism' swiftly became a cover for colonial philanthropy. What was advertised as billionaires giving their money away turned into the ultrawealthy creating untaxed entities to deploy their money in building pocket empires that assert their will upon the planet. I have suggested previously that the only kind of 'charity' we should accept from the onepercenters is the restoration of the commons (of any and all kinds). Everything else they do 'for our benefit' we ought to find morally repugnant.
I don't think the slobs in adult babygrows slouching around clutching vapes and burgers give any thought to anything - modern people seem to be completely reactive rather than proactive. Some yoof on TikTok suggests raiding Oxford Street for no apparent reason - well who cares and why not?
I think it all stems from the "permissive '60s" where the old rules were thrown out in favour of turning on and tuning out. Young adults in the 1960s didn't think discipline was good for children - I was at school in the late '60s/early '70s and we were expected to "discover" our multiplication tables, weren't taught grammar because "it stifles creativity" and spent many school hours doing nothing as the teachers were generally on strike. They got rid of grammar schools and turned education into a lowest common denominator experience. They stopped bothering with religion and church. They started having spare cash and being able to buy luxuries. They were rude and dismissive of previous generations. Why is anyone surprised that their grandchildren have no concept of self-control, self-discipline, good manners?