American philosophy was a product of the Modern Age that had its precursor with the Italian Renaissance and its birth with the European Enlightenment. The Modern Age is characterized by the development of human reason as the dominant force shaping human life. It was during this time that science and the scientific method of analysis flowered and the universe began slowly to yield its secrets. Human beings began to experience their early adolescence. They felt their power as masters over nature and they began to outgrow the mythical dogmatism of traditional religions. They no longer needed God to tell them the truth; they could figure it out for themselves.
By the time American philosophy in the form of Pragmatism came into its own, Modernism and the process of modernization had reached a fever pitch. Science was unraveling every mystery and some predicted that soon there would be nothing left to discover. Yet this enormous success also had its problems and one of those was the loss of a moral basis for human ethics. Without a mythic God to tell us the law, and without the fear of God to enforce that law, what would guide human behavior?
Many began to see the class distinctions, inequalities and hardships of modern industrialized nations as the inevitable selfish evils of a society that had no moral compass to guide it. One of the jobs of modern philosophy became to find a way of defining goodness and creating a shared ethical standard that could guide humanity into the future.
Pragmatism is at heart an ethical philosophy. By equating truth with utility the pragmatists were essentially stating that what is good is what works. But that didn’t really solve the problem at all because it leaves open to question how you define what works. Works for who? How? And in what context? Without a well defined goodness, Pragmatism easily fell into the trap of becoming a philosophy of personal utility. “What is good is what works for me?” Pragmatism too easily slipped into the position of being a part of the problem instead of the solution.
Yet the early Pragmatists with their evolutionary ethics were on to something. They recognized that the movement from a static conception of reality to an evolving one was tremendously fundamental. It necessitated a radical reorientation to life at levels of choice and perception that had been taken for granted for so long that they had submerged into unconsciousness. John Dewey in particular outlined the beginnings of a viable evolutionary ethics or at least pointed out the direction where we should look for one.
His solution to the problem of goodness was to define goodness as the process of perfecting. Goodness became a verb instead of a noun. The evil doer who is actively improving his or her behavior is good, while the do-gooder who is not developing is not. Goodness to Dewey was not measured against a static external ideal. It was measured in the amount of change toward the better in one’s own behavior. Development is good, stagnation is bad.
Dewey’s ethics are complex and worthy of deeper consideration. It is an incomplete system with plenty of holes needing to be filled. Yet, I believe that it will rise again out of its current obscurity to be re-examined and upgraded because for all of its lack, it does identify what I see as the quintessential ethical shift of our time.
4 responses so far ↓
Lawrence // July 5, 2009 at 9:25 am
Nice post Jeff. Dewey fascinates me and I appreciate your touching on his views so simply. From what little I know of him I really like how grounded in experimentalism and non-dualism he was.
How did New York go?
Angela Eward-Mangione // July 6, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Jeff: Thanks for another fascinating blog post! I enjoyed reading about pragmatism as an active conduit for evolutionary ethics. My favorite line (par. 5): “It necessitated a radical reorientation to life at levels of choice and perception that had been taken for granted for so long that they had submerged into unconsciousness.” It would appear that cross-fertilization has much to do with the “resurfacing” of choice perspectives and perceptions. The Italian Renaissance as precursor is important, as is the European Enlightenment. I sometimes wonder how much we take these influences for granted. Thank you for the reminder. I also find it interesting to consider the emergence of pragmatism alongside American literature (Wharton, Dreiser, Joyce, and Fitzgerald come to mind), as well as the Artistic and Musical evolution(s) of Surrealism, Art Deco, and Jazz. It would seem that a cross-examination of these cultural occurrences reveals the impetus toward process and evolution rather than what is fixed. Thanks again. This ethical shift you point to is very important and not something I have thought about enough. Now I will. Thank you very much!
Jeff Carreira // July 7, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Angela, It has been on my mind to look at the development of American literature an the aarts alongside Pragmatism. I have been reading some about Edith Wharton – her Berkshire mansion is right near where I live – but that is as far as i have gotten. She was definately also deeply influenced by evolution so I am sure there is lots more to learn in this direction. Anything that you know of, or find out about would be great to hear.
Angela Eward-Mangione // July 9, 2009 at 10:53 am
Jeff, I will let you know what I find out. I have not looked at Wharton since I took undergraduate college courses in American literature. I read Wharton (and others) in the fall of 2001. I remember the day that we carried on a discussion about Wharton after knowing full well that planes had just crashed into the Twin Towers in New York City (Sept 01). We did not know what to do, so we just carried on. We discussed Wharton’s search for meaning amidst what felt like the total collapse of meaning all around us. I think I was 21 years old. I have not looked at anything from Wharton or other American Authors since then. I suppose I could pick it up again. It is an intriguing line of inquiry. I’ll let you know what I find out alongside these studies of Pragmatism.