First Research: Morality

The first book that I read for my paper was Morality: An Introduction to Ethics by Bernard Williams, and I can confidently say that this was the most difficult book I have ever read. It was divided into sections, each about a specific question or segment of ethical thought. Firstly, it was written in a way that was very confusing; Williams was almost editorial in his analysis of moral thought and other philosophers, but he was also long-winded and wordy. Apart from that, the concepts themselves were very difficult to grasp at times. Nevertheless, it was a very interesting and valuable book, and it opened me up to a lot of new ideas and problems that I had never considered.

The first sections of the book that really interested me were about what "goodness" is. Williams asserted that the presence of goodness cannot be quantified or determined empirically. What he was talking about when discussing "goodness" was the idea of "a good x." We cannot determine whether x is good or not without knowing what the x is, because it is much less complex to be, for example, a good cricketer than it is to be a good father (as Williams explains in his chapter, "Goodness and Roles"). Along the same lines as "goodness," Williams explored what happiness is and what humans do to try to attain it. He discusses the differences between "nontranscendental" philosophies, which are ones that try to determine what defines man, and "transcendental" philosophies, which are ones that try to determine what man's purpose is. Williams discounts utilitarianism as an effective way to secure the "greatest happiness for the greatest number" because utilitarianism is, among other things, a way to make morality quantifiable and a way of excusing bad punishments as being good for the happiness of the community. (This view is Williams', and is rather one-sided.)

On the whole, this book opened me up to a lot of different ideas and thoughts that have made me curious about more specific questions. It made me think about what human nature is, because Williams discussed Hobbes' view that human nature is inherently chaotic. It made me want to explore the idea of relativism a little bit more; Williams views it as "vulgar" because it implores one to regard someone else's culture as moral -- not because it is moral, but because it is someone else's and therefore one is not supposed to judge it as one would judge her own culture. This is a very interesting point, and could be contrasted with Montaigne's view that one should allow there to be different kinds of morality for different kinds of people. Another thing that Williams said that interested me was, "To care about another's pain is an extension of caring about one's own." This made me wonder about the morality of empathy: is empathy for the good of the person empathizing, or for the good of the person being empathized with?

This book was a good starter for me. It gave me a lot of information that I didn't have, and also a lot of questions. I think my next step is to read another book that is similar in its broad discussion base, to gain a little more general insight into morality and ethics. From there, I can choose a specific question to focus on, and I can narrow down my research to fit the question. I'm excited to keep researching and learning and thinking, and I like that this is challenging for me. I'm trying to steer away from things that I've learning and discussed, in this class and in others, just because I am more interested in learning something completely new. I'm pleased I picked this topic, and I can't wait to see where my research takes me.