Introduction: Seeing the Problems

By Justin Synnestvedt [from my 2016 book, Modern Or Moral]

Starting point
Ive had hundreds of conversations about morality, with students in philosophy, and more recently, with
adults who gather at regular discussion sessions of the Chicago Philosophy Meetup. Ive seen an increasing
trend to dismiss any idea of transcendence from the discussion. This essay is an effort to analyze that trend,
and if possible, present arguments to show that talk about morality can only be meaningful when the
possibility of transcendence is admitted.
The essay will address three questions. First, it will analyze what constitutes goodwill i.e. what moral
choice entails, with respect to the mind state of the subject who is trying to be a good person, or to do the
right thing. Second, it will examine judgments about goodness i.e. the standard of choice that guides
choosers to know what the right thing is, and do it. Third, it will consider what role belief, and particularly
religious belief, plays in the discovery of moral principles and in personal moral development. Each of these
questions has multiple aspects, many of which overlap. In addition, the essay is intended to give a historical
and philosophical account of the subject, to show that perspectives about the questions have changed. Given
the scope and shifting emphasis of these topics, the best I can hope for is to avoid repetition, where possible,
and leave readers with an overview, clear enough that they can judge if my own perspective is reasonable.

Moral questions require problems

What does morality (or immorality) mean? What constitutes a good (or bad) deed? What is the mark (or
marks) of an ethical, or good person? Ive asked such questions hundreds of times, teaching philosophy for
over four decades most of that time at a large community college near Chicago. The context was usually
discussing a reading assignment. It might be analyzing Platos Meno, or Epicurus Letter to Menoeceus; it
might be the pros and cons of the death penalty in Illinois, or laws about censorship; it might be judging a
fictional character, like Bigger, in Wrights Native Son, or a historical character, like Socrates, in the
Apology. Whatever the context, however, these conversations quickly showed how little thought most
students ever give to such questions, and how unready they are to engage them seriously.
This observation wont surprise any person with some degree of higher education. When I speak of my
students, I mean ordinary people of middle class backgrounds, with public school experience. Most of them
have recently graduated from high school, but some are adults, out of work, or upgrading for a new job, or
mothers whose children no longer need their constant attention. Questions about value I mean real
questions are not generally part of their school curricula or their personal interests.i Not only is reasoning
about these deeper questions left undeveloped; reasoning about anything at all remains largely undeveloped,
with the exception of those lucky enough to be in S.T.E.M. curricula (Science, Technology, Engineering and
Mathematics), with good teachers.
Critical thinking comes from need
In America today, the decline in critical thinking and a questioning attitude is occurring, despite the loud
clamor during the past four decades about higher education being as necessary now as high school education
was at the beginning of that period.ii And this assessment doesnt even consider the shameful condition of
inner city schools around the country, where access to meaningful, relevant education is severely limited.iii
 Critical thinking i.e. the search for knowledge that is objective, and based on reasoning is an
acquired skill. It doesnt come easily, or by nature. Children are not naturally curious, in the sense that they
seek knowledge or truth. What people think of as childhood curiosity is mainly childrens search for pleasure,
and the means to obtain it. They typically accept as true what their parents and elders say, because it benefits
them to do so. And in cases of conflict, they accept the ideas of those who can benefit them most. From
childhood on, our tendency is to accept ideas that continue to support our natural desire for success and
happiness, however we have come to think of these. We believe what we want to believe, which is whatever
meets these goals. These facts of human nature are the basis of marketing and political persuasion, of course,
which we will examine later.
Critical thinking happens in a social context; its best developed in a family, community or society that
realizes its value. Todays society doesnt typically do that. But a couple of generations ago, it did. Look at
the period of radical social change in the fifties and sixties. First was the so-called Beat Generation a post-
World War II movement in New York of artists and writers who rejected conventional thinking and forms of
acceptable art, and adopted bohemian life styles, much as their European counterparts had done in the late
19th and early 20th centuries. Four wars in the interim period surely helped to reawaken those reactions.
Ginsbergs Howl, and Kerouacs On the Road are prime examples. Some of the Beatniks moved to San
Francisco, and influenced the growth of the counter culture Hippie movement that emerged in the sixties and
seventies, combining reactions to the war in Vietnam with rejection of violence, interest in eastern religion,
and love of nature, not to mention sex, drugs and rock an roll.
Also in the mid-fifties, Hollywood began introducing this same rebellious spirit into mainstream
consciousness through film. James Deans Rebel Without a Cause, and Marlon Brandos The Wild Ones,
made instant cult heroes of these young actors both of whom had been through New York method
training, although their films were set in California. And rock and roll developed, bringing black music into
the white mainstream, with songs like Little Richards Lucile and Elvis Presleys Hound Dog.
Moved by this anti-establishment spirit, and by the long, apparently hopeless war in Vietnam, students,
teachers and progressive activists of all sorts joined together to press Washington for changes. Instead of
complaining about the system, or dropping out of it as the earlier objectors had done these groups
threatened to burn the mother**cker down. Sometimes violent, their protests raised public awareness
enough that political authorities began acceding to their demands. The student movements had parallels in
western Europe (e.g. France and Germany), and in the Soviet Union (e.g. Hungary and Czechoslovakia)
the latter being brutally put down by armed forces.
In a series of leaps, rather than gradually, American society went through revolutionary changes. More
and more people questioned and abandoned social norms in every area, including sexual behavior and sexual
orientation, womens roles, race relations, international politics, drug use and musical tastes; and laws were
passed accordingly, especially in matters of so-called civil rights. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the spirit
of criticism and serious questioning evident in that time quickly subsided, and subsequently has all but
disappeared. Others share this opinion.iv
Im not suggesting that radical thinking is good thinking, or that periods of social unrest generate
rational, objective solutions. On the contrary, they are often very irrational, and passionate, and bring about
pain and suffering as often as not. But they do generate a questioning attitude, and this questioning can lead
to a search for genuine knowledge about what is important, and rational efforts to find the means to such
ends. Its understandable that criticism. is often taken to be negative and destructive. This fact supports my
claim that curiosity which leads to knowledge, and critical thinking that is rational and constructive, are not
common or natural.
 Why no moral questioning today?
The poor or non-existent moral reasoning I speak of in the general public today no doubt has many
causes. For one, ordinary people dont typically give reasons for their opinions, when they dont see any
need for reasoning. Since their ideas are typically borrowed from social norms, everyone knows they are
correct. Unless beliefs are challenged, people dont need, and so get no practice to prove, what is already
generally accepted (believed). My teaching role for many years has been to challenge beliefs. But apart from
the formal context of a philosophy class, one who challenges a persons beliefs will often be dismissed as
annoying, or even a crackpot.
Moreover, every society has its rules of behavior that are well known by its members. The customs
mores may differ, about personal space, eye contact, kissing on both cheeks, or male-female public
displays of affection, but I find the basics dont differ greatly from society to society. Some social scientists
will dispute this suggestion, referring to examples of strange behaviors (or even values), but these groups are
small and isolated tribes; the exceptions prove the rule. Dont steal; dont lie; dont murder; dont cheat;
dont have an illicit affair. (What constitutes illicit changes, of course.) People have little problem reciting,
and for the most part following, these rules, unless someone asks Why shouldnt I steal, lie, murder, have an
affair or cheat? Ofcourse we all break some of these rules now and then; but very few people deny their
validity. Even terrible characters, who appear to have no conscience, nevertheless try (if they are not obvious
sociopaths), either to deny their misdeeds, if possible, or else to justify them when they are discovered. We
will look at ethical and cultural relativism later.
Another factor in this lack of moral questioning is the change that schooling normally brings to students
points of view, when they begin to learn about other cultures from classes like history, sociology,
anthropology, and comparative religions. Upon discovering societies whose habits of thought and behavior
(apparently representing values) differ from their own, students adopt a more socially sophisticated view, as
they progress through high school and into college. The greater the strangeness of these societies, the more
interest and attention they attract. Students begin to think of their own habits and values as most likely only
the product of where they were raised, and by whom. For them to argue that their personal views are correct,
or preferable, would be fruitless at best, and even socially risky.
Add to this, teachers who went through the liberalizing experiences of the earlier era especially social
science teachers have typically adopted a value-neutral approach to their teaching. That is, wanting not to
sound prejudicial, and often being moral relativists themselves, teachers dont encourage discussion about
moral viewpoints. They are apt to say, frequently, Im not making a moral judgment here, when they
describe, but dont advocate, the different value sets they examine in classes. This value neutrality probably
affects the students. Although adolescents are increasingly conscious of their right to an opinion, they are
also painfully conscious of how they appear to their peers. Wishing not to seem pushy or dogmatic, they may
keep quiet about their personal values. For this reason, they get little opportunity to practice arguing about
their views, or even expressing them.v
The scarcity of moral reasoning stems also from thinking of morals as a shopping list of dos and donts,
with little sense of their interrelations. Markedly absent is any sense of hierarchy among value claims. Casual
thinkers dont have a meta view. That is, they dont have the habit of getting a big picture about themselves
or about life. They do not understand, or even look for, principles, as contrasted with behavior; nor do they
consider that principles can be ordered hierarchically. They typically follow (or dont follow) rules, without
thinking how they are derived. And those who do think about principles, as we will examine in more detail
below, are often skeptical about their validity, or even that they exist.
Perhaps the greatest obstacle to moral reasoning has been the ever-increasing influence of
commercialism (and consumerism) on the whole society. This is my belief. Every business enterprise takes
as a principle the need to provide what the customer wants, without regard for whether a product or service
benefits the customer or the society, which is not after all the business of business. This means that peoples
desires (paradoxically in large part generated by marketing techniques) are the driving force for profit-
making. And following the rebellious period mentioned above, efforts to restrict commerce in the interests of
social needs have, again paradoxically, been systematically rejected in the name of individual rights and the
advancement of freedom to seek pleasure freely; as well as the insistence on free speech with little regard for
its effect on children, minorities or community standards of acceptable behavior.vi
The societal improvements of an earlier generations civil rights legislation seem to be gradually eroding
under political pressures of those who want less government intervention in what is deemed free market
capitalism. (In actuality, the markets seem less free as time passes, not from government control, but from
the manipulation by executives and employees who jeopardize the welfare of their companies for private
benefit.) The advocacy of individualism to an extreme degree, together with a steady campaign of negative
advertising about governmental controls, have worked against the cohesion and welfare of communities.
Increasingly, todays social critics argue that money values have replaced all other values which traditionally
have kept society together, well and happy.vii Well look more closely at some of these problems in the
discussion of choice, especially in Chapter 12.

Value choices without moral questioning

None of these observations, however, implies that ordinary people dont have values, or make value
choices. Its just that the values are not examined critically, or held as a result of good, independent thinking.
Casual observation proves how willing many people are to express opinions about good and bad, on the spur
of the moment, even to total strangers, like poll takers or reporters. What do you think about X? elicits a
quick approval or disapproval, whether X is a person, a policy, an event, a regulation, a song, a film, a
musical genre, a piece of art or a product for sale. Political polling and commercial marketing rely heavily on
such customer surveys.
Most value choices are made quickly, and do not rise to the level of moral decisions. Quick answers
cannot be true value judgments. Judgment of any sort requires a standard against which to judge, a process of
evaluation, an awareness of a range of possibilities, and a questioning attitude, which implies that good
answers are never certain or obvious, let alone quick.viii In brief, ordinary people dont even see value
questions as questions, but as opportunities to express their views to fellow students and the general public.

What is a moral question?

A moral question, first-of-all, is a question. And as such, its part of language, which means it deals with
abstraction, with ideas and judgments about the world. Moreover, it isnt a feeling or an exclamation, but a
question implying a search for truth in some sense, or at least looking for an answer.
As stated above, the larger problem for this essay is whether a rational discussion of moral questions is
possible today. By today, I mean in the modern especially the post-modern and contemporary culture
which is, strangely, both scientific and relativistic towards truth of any kind. Furthermore, although science
and relativism oppose each other (part of the creative tension of modernism), they tend to agree in denying
the existence of universal moral principles (which adds to that tension).
A moral question is a value question, but not all value questions involve morality. I make a value
judgment when I say my watch is valuable, or that clean water is a public good, or that a good book is a
good companion, or that yoga is a good way to relieve stress, or that were having bad weather, or that
Spot is a bad dog. The GDP of a nation claims to measure the nations goods and services, and puts a
dollar value on the results.
None of these uses of value language rises to the level of moral thinking. But each value expression does
illustrate something that brings up the possibility of moral questions. Every value statement depends on an
individual judgment, or claim, about which there may be disagreement, but not much argument. Thats
because we know they express feelings or matters of taste, rather than verifiable facts. As the practical
Romans recognized, De gustibus non disputandum est (About matters of taste there is no argument).
All values entail choices
Values (and value language) entail choice, in two ways. First, the person expressing her judgment that
something is valuable has to distinguish among various candidates for things to value, and among their
relative values. Is a particular thing of more, or less, or equal value, compared to other things that she values?
Secondly, a person who makes a value judgment ordinarily expects to act on that judgment. It isnt just an
exercise in thinking; it helps to guide her behavior, whether every day or momentous. Both these aspects of
choice entail the question of freedom, which is one focus of this essay.
Valued objects can be physical or mental
Although much of normal value choosing involves things, we also use value language to describe what
exists only in the realm of thought. For example, I can say that John had a good idea, or that a report uses
bad data, or that the announcer used bad grammar, or that citizens have no good reason to support the
proposed legislation, or that I like to use good reasoning, or that my friend is good at presenting a
persuasive argument. And even though they may be abstract, these value expressions, like the earlier
examples, also fail to rise to the level of moral significance. But in judging these ideas of what is valuable,
we rise above matters of simple taste (e.g. choosing strawberry over chocolate). There is a degree of
objectivity about good or bad ideas, since they really involve questions of validity, correctness, or truth. So
we can say that value claims deal both with what choices a person makes, and with how those choices are
evaluated. Moral language and behavior then involve both choice and judgment. This duality traditionally
called willing and reasoning informs all the present essay.
Subjectivity of morals is in the choosing
It is often said, humans create value. Typically, there is disagreement about what has value, and what
has more value than what. If we follow the subjectivist position (described later), anything a person values
has value, but obviously this cannot be used as a standard for morality. If we follow the strictly scientific
perspective (described below), nothing has objective value. Value exists only in language about value, not
in language about facts of nature. Facts are what they are, and people judge them with value terminology,
e.g. This car is worthless, or That murder was unforgiveable.
Its clear that morality talk shares with non-moral value talk the fact of human subjectivity. Obviously
only humans can make value judgments, be they about the world and its contents, or about humans (oneself,
as well as others). But moral value judgments can only properly apply to humans not to animals or things.
That is, whether making the judgment, or being judged, only the human world contains moral value; the
non-human world doesnt. I put the terms human and non-human in inverted commas, because I realize
there is no non-human world, either for a perceiver, or a thinker. (A priest, a scientist, an art critic, a
craftsperson and a philosopher belong to the world they examine and talk about.) But the long debated
fact/value distinction seems inescapable. The worlds of what is and what should be appear to be totally
distinct, but what that distinction entails is disputed. What is may well exclude What should be,
objectively speaking. It may do so, but I believe it does not. I hope we can speak objectively about morals,
without leaving the realm of reality and truth.
Objectivity of morals is in the chosen
This brings up another main characteristic of moral choice as I see it. To say that humans make moral
judgments, or are judged morally by others, implies that there is some basis or standard for that judgment,
which the judge believes is objective i.e. lies outside of herself. People typically believe their own basis or
standard is objective and reasonable, rather than subjective and emotional. Whether or not that is actually the
case, or even could be the case, is among the primary questions this essay must consider. My answers should
not be based on what most people believe, however. Majority decisions dont determine questions of right or
wrong.

Aims of this essay

Ive tried to set the scene for discussing morality, by saying that in the ordinary public arena, little of interest
is happening. Of course this is a problem a social problem since a successful, happy society needs a
moral foundation. But the latter presumes a leadership, especially in education, that is practiced and skilled
in critical thinking and moral questioning. Today it seems that serious questioning about morality (or ethics)
especially theories about what moral judgments entail is a topic only discussed in university philosophy
departments, where much conflict and little compromise seems to be typical. I wont join those debates,
which seem too far removed from moral practice.
This essay was prompted by conversations I have had about morality among thoughtful, well-educated
people of wide ranging professions and skills, most of whom have little connection with higher academia,
but who are of philosophical temperament and are interested in morality and questions of value. Ive been
motivated to reconsider long held presuppositions my own and others to see if its possible to find an
engaging, convincing and practical way of dealing with moral issues today.
The audience for this essay is not the people on the street who have little skill or interest in such
questions, nor is it those at high levels of academia whose skill and interest seems to be focused on
defending their theories. The educated and thoughtful audience in the middle is well motivated, both to learn
and to put what they know about moral values into practice, personally, professionally, and especially
socially. In their roles as citizens, they can be agents for change, pressing their politicians to pay attention to
the moral aspects of legislation, and counter the prevailing climate of money interests. Although this middle
audience does not suffer from weak reasoning or inadequate schooling, it does suffer, I believe, from a
gradual, complex and profound shift in attitudes about truth, and the search for knowledge, which affects our
moral conversation negatively. This is a trend I will attempt to analyze in following sections of the essay.
The problem for me, which is the focus of the present essay, can be summarized in the following
question: Can we discuss moral issues reasonably or philosophically today? Indeed, does it even make sense
to talk of a question of morality? I hope to answer both these questions in the affirmative, and at the same
time give a credible account in very broad brush strokes of what moral life entails. In the process, I will
introduce readers to the thinking of Emanuel Swedenborg, who deals with the essential questions here, in
ways I think are very effective.
A word on method
The following pages should present nothing difficult or very surprising to most readers, nor are the
topics unfamiliar. Even so, I am trying to give a broad, historical overview with critical analysis, with a
philosophical viewpoint. This means that some of the discussion will take ideas directly from academic
philosophers, which are often difficult to follow, and use specialized terminology. This is especially true in
the sections on Post-Enlightenment Idealism (Chapter 7), on Phenomenology (Chapter 10), and on
Modernism and Postmodernism (Chapter 11). I cover these more academic ideas in the interest of fairness,
but the coverage is shallow, and readers might well omit them. I dont believe they represent major different
currents from the rest of the developing cultural change I try to outline just variations on themes.
Most of the conclusions or claims I make in this essay have been made many times before, by many
people. However, organizing them is a challenge. A shopping list of arguments isnt attractive; but I see no
direct, linear approach that leads nicely from a set of premises to a conclusion. My work takes the form of
gathering evidence, and letting the reader weigh it up, more or less as a whole, instead of trying to reduce it
all to a single thread of reasoning. Philosopher John Wisdom once described such a method, in a famous
discussion about arguing for Gods existence. He said it is more like a trial before a court than an exercise in
logic. The hope is to persuade ones audience that the evidence weighs more in favor of the conclusion than
against.ix
Unlike Wisdom, Im not arguing directly for Gods existence, which I think is a waste of effort. Instead,
my conclusion is that without the possibility of a transcendent good a concept that will be explained a
meaningful discussion of morality is impossible. If this essay is successful, it will present a big enough
picture i.e. bring enough argument threads into the discussion that the overall conclusion will seem
reasonable and acceptable. It will not, however, be definitive or compelling. That is because answers to the
questions I am examining cannot be compelling; belief by compulsion contradicts the conclusions this essay
supports. I hope this claim will become evident as the essay progresses.
i The Foundation for Critical Thinking has been encouraging educational reform in this area since
1980. It has annual international conferences, and a website: CriticalThinking.org. Refer to the PDF
file on the importance of questions (not answers) to good thinking. Questions keep thought going;
answers stop the process of thinking.

ii Goldie Blumenstyk, American Higher Education In Crisis? (New York: Oxford University Press,
2014.

iii Peter McLaren, Life in Schools: An Introduction to Critical Pedagogy in the Foundations of
Education, 5th edition, Allyn & Bacon, 2006.

iv See, e.g. Linda Churney, Student Protests of the 1960s, Yale-Newhaven Teachers Institute,
#79.02.03

v See Jacques Ellul, Propaganda: The Formations of Mens Attitudes, 1973.

vi Efforts to restrict childrens TV programs with respect to violence, or advertising toys that are part of
the program content, etc., have been routinely blocked in the interests of free speech. The 2014
Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, interprets political
contributions as free speech, benefitting the market interests of the oligarchic class of business owners.

vii See, e.g., Chris Hedges, The Death of the Liberal Class(2011); Justin Synnestvedt, Inequity, Iniquity
and Debt (2014); and Costas Lapavitsas, The Financialization of Life, 6 part series of The Real News
Network (2016).

viii The word reason in Latin is ratio. This reminds us that rationality involves comparing (and
judging the value) of ideas, as a mathematical ratio. A statement involves a subject and predicate; the
predicate is judged to be predicated of the other, as in Socrates is mortal.

ix John Wisdom, Gods, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (1944-45), 185-206.