J. Baird Callicot, “The Case Against Moral Pluralism” Environmental Ethics 12(1990): 99-124.

Fun word to know and use:

conation: “an inclination (as an instinct, a drive, a wish, or a craving) to act purposefully”  (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conative; accessed 2-9-09)

Conative - Co"na*tive\ (? or ?), a. [See Conatus.] Of or pertaining to conation. This division of mind into the three great classes of the cognitive faculties, the feelings, . . . and the exertive or conative powers, . . . was first promulgated by Kant. --Sir W. Hamilton. (conative. Dictionary.com. Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary. MICRA, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conative (accessed: February 09, 2009).

Reading Questions

1.  Callicott’s argument in large part depends on definition.  How does he define “moral pluralism”?  (104, 106)  Does this definition seem to capture what his opponents mean by moral pluralism?   Why does he think it is not surprising that the issue arises in relation to environmental ethics?  (99-104) Why is his own nested view of morality not moral pluralism in his view? (120-124) 

2.  Callicott often proceeds by recounting the history of various positions or reviewing various key positions, gaining traction by his interpretation of those positions. Why does Callicott hold that Taylor’s and Rolston’s positions are not pluralist? (107-109)

3.  What does he see as the weaknesses of a pluralist position, especially in terms of “Moral Pluralism’s Achilles Heel:  The Hard Choice Between Contradictory Indications” on 109-113?  Is his description of weaknesses fair?  Is it convincing?

4.   On p. 113 he writes:  “Here finally is the crux of what I think is wrong with moral pluralism.  It severs ethical theory from moral philosophy, from the metaphysical foundations in which ethical theory is, whether we are conscious of it or not, grounded.”   Callicott also writes on p. 115, “Moral pluralism, in short, implies metaphysical musical chairs.”  Unpack these statements. 

In order to do so, it is important to determine what Callicott means by “ethical theory”, “moral philosophy”, and  “metaphysical foundations” ?   Do utilitarianism and Kantianism rest on the metaphysical world views that Callicott says they do on pages114-115?  Does ethics rest on “myths” or “comprehensive conceptual systems that fully embrace our ever-growing body of empirical knowledge, scientific theory, and self-discovery” (116) or “world views”?  What would be the iff that defined a “myth” or “system”?  Do you think Callicott is right?  Why or why not?

5.  How does Callicott distinguish between constructive and deconstructive postmodernisms?  Does he really understand various postmodern positions or is he merely caricaturing them?  Why include this section in the article?

6.  At the end of the article, Callicott presents his own nested view, what he calls “a communitarian moral philosophy consistent with and embedded in the larger evolutionary world view outlined in The Origin of the Species.” (121)  This is the same view he put forth in "Holistic Environmental Ethics and the Problem of Ecofascism” which we read last week. Is this truly a monistic system?  By what definitions of monism and pluralism?   Does it avoid the weaknesses Callicott attributes to pluralism and maintain the strengths he associates with monism?   Why does Callicott think folks relate his “moral sentiments” approach to emotivism and relativism and thus rejected?  Does the association with HUME hurt or help his case?  What are the typical criticisms  philosophers offer to Hume’s ethics?  Does the association with sociobiology hurt or help his case?