The Emotive In Ethics
Print This Post
Tom Regan writes in Animal Rights and Human Obligations,
“Philosophy can lead the mind to water but only emotion can make it drink.”
In a curiously circular manner, Regan seems to be presupposing a conception of “philosophy” wherein basic concepts and ethical principles are mechanistically examined, and truth is gleaned through pure rationalistic processes, disconnected from emotion. However, from Arthur Schopenhauer and David Hume, to Marti Kheel and Carol Adams, each philosopher’s as I understand the concept, Regan’s assertion would be turned on its head. It is the emotive that leads the mind to water; reason considers the options, and the emotive returns to provide the impetus to drink.
Regan’s position is confused: reason and emotion are unified, or more to the point, emotion logically precedes reason so Regan has mistaken the cause for the effect.
Crossposted @ That Vegan Girl
“reason and emotion are unified” I agree
Er, “considers the options” *is* leading the mind to water. That’s the metaphor.
I disagree. Regan argues that reason gets us thinking about the water. He’s wrong; it is emotion that compels us to consider an object morally valuable — or “thinking about the water.” Emotion similarly compels action. Regan bypasses the initial stage, assuming, as Singer does, that moral agents are rational and act through mechanistic processes of unbiased reasoning. Reason, in my assessment, acts mechanistically to consider reasonable options for action, but that is its only role in this metaphor. Regan is wrong here; it’s a difference with consequence.
~ Recent blog post: More evidence that horse racing is fucked ~
I don’t see where you’re getting “thinking about the water” in this metaphor. It’s “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.” Two steps.
You say, “Regan [assumes] that moral agents are rational and act through mechanistic processes of unbiased reasoning.” – but this is exactly the opposite of what Regan is saying!
Precisely, that is Regan’s error: there are three, NOT two, steps, as I briefly detailed in the post. Accordingly, Regan’s argument is turned on its head, with reason – “philosophy” as Regan writes – playing the intermediate role, bookended by the emotive. Therefore, Regan is arguing that reason leads the mind to water through the rationalistic method. My contention is that he is wrong: it is emotion that “leads the horse to water.”
~ Recent blog post: More evidence that horse racing is fucked ~
Depends on the horse