Huang - Blog 11

 In Section 1 Chapter 5 of The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Adam Smith outlines that there are standards for having relevant “amiable and respectable virtues.” He argues that people should learn to adjust their passions in order to receive a reasonable understanding from an “impartial spectator.” In this way, there is a distinction between “virtue and mere propriety.” Virtue deserves to be admired and celebrated; whereas mere propriety deserves only to be approved of. The former is one that requires an adjustment from the speaker such that it can reflect a level of emotion that can be understood by the impartial spectator. Of course, there is a sliding scale between completely disregarding the standpoint of the observer and expressing suffering to the exact degree that the impartial spectator is able to sympathize with. People’s virtues, then, can be judged between “complete propriety and perfection” and the “idea of that degree of proximity or distance from this complete perfection” (21). Ultimately, though, adjusting one’s standpoint for the audience is the most virtuous. However, this faces a major problem with Seana Shiffrin’s arguments for truth in Speech Matters. 


Shiffrin argues that speech should be framed in a “thinker-based approach” that does not distinguish tiers of truth-telling, and does not move emotional communication to a different tier: “the exchange of thoughts, beliefs, emotions, perceptions, and ideas with others is essential to each person’s ability to function well as a thinker and as a moral agent” (94). One of the main reasons for this is because there is no way to know what another person thinks apart from what they express verbally via their speech. There is no method to reach into someone’s mind to discover their genuine thoughts, so people must express their thoughts truthfully because “moral agency is a cooperative matter that depends on reliable channels of communication… for its development and realization” (114). As such, it is potentially dangerous to argue that censoring, limiting, or adjusting expressions of your passions in order to match a reasonable level of sympathy from an impartial spectator. If someone does not sympathize with your degrees of emotions regarding a specific topic, it could be more beneficial, more virtuous, to engage in persuasion or a discussion than to seek sympathy.


Do Smith’s accounts of virtue significantly contradict the value of speech in expressing truth? To what extent does the importance of seeking sympathy outweigh the importance of adopting truth-telling and therefore social trust? Should we prioritize seeking sympathy over the value of persuasion?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gero - Final Farewell Blog Post Fifteen

        The concept of the private government of the modern workplace as described by Anderson in Chapter 2 of   Private Government   enforces a double jeopardy on women in particular. In her paper “Unstrapping the Straitjacket of Preference” Anderson asserts that “bargaining theory recommends that, if women are to improve their situation, they ought to seek employment outside of the home” (page 35). Women’s situation is also improved as work allows women to create an identity outside of the home through joining larger group identities (page 36). Putting this dilemma in the language of   Private Government , women suffer under the patriarchal private governments of the home, where fathers and husbands exert arbitrary and unaccountable power over them. To create identity, they must then join additional private government outside of the home and in the workplace.             While many...
Read more

Mehra - Blog Post "Lucky Number 13"

  In “Unstrapping the Straightjacket of ‘Preference;’ a Comment on Amartya Sen’s Contributions to Philosophy and Economics”, Elizabeth Anderson expands Sen’s suspicion of ‘preference’ as the function of rational decision making. In attempting to fill Sen’s lacuna regarding rational judgments and building off his prior work, Anderson puts forth “ The Priority of Identity to Rational Principle : what principle of choice it is rational to act on depends on a prior determination of personal identity, of who one is” (30). Identity advances the force of collective agency. According to Anderson, “In taking up the perspective of collective agency, the parties to an n-person prisoner’s dilemma can see their actions as jointly advancing a desirable goal even though none of their actions taken in isolation has a positive marginal impact on that goal” (30). Identity with part of a group compels them to take membership in collective action and advance shared goals. Identity is messy, nuanced, a...
Read more

Discussion Leader Sign Up

  Discussion Leader Sign Up (“bb” = before break; “ab” = after break)   March 25: Brettschneider   When the State … (bb): Wills March 25: Brettschneider When the State … (ab): Josh   April 1: Brettschneider (bb): Brettschneider April 1: Brettschneider (ab): Tara   April 8: Scalia et al (bb): Olivia April 8: Scalia et al (ab): Jess   April 15: Adam Smith (bb):Cam April 15: Adam Smith (ab):Daniel K   April 22: Sen (bb): Amari April 22: Sen (ab): Daniel H   April 29: Anderson “Unstrapping…” (bb): April 29: Anderson “Unstrapping…” (ab):   May 4: Anderson Private Government (bb): Alexis May 4: Anderson Private Government (ab): Sarah   May 6: Anderson (bb): Anderson
Read more