The Greedy Capitalist: David Veksler's Homepage :: Essay

The true test of intelligence is not how much we know how to do, but how we behave when we don't know what to do.-- John Holt

Sunday, December 09, 2001

(This is a thorough (but outdated) criticism of Dewey I did for my ethical theory class)

David Veksler

Ethical Theory

Philosophy 381 Exam # 2

3. The nature of Dewey’s moral deliberation

All human questions could be said to be divided into two categories – the normative and the positive – or the questions of “what is” and “what ought to be.” When a normative judgment is based on a consideration of good and evil –however that is defined, we generally say that it is a moral judgment. There have been many philosophers who have proposed standards for determining just what is good and evil and the means to make that evaluation. The general purpose of such evaluation is as a guide to action – in particular, actions that lead to a moral life. John Dewey is such a philosopher. He offers a process-based system that is a guide to making moral judgments rather than a set of specific rules.

Dewey departs radically from most philosophers by viewing morality as a present process rater than a rule-based process that derives its validity from the nature of the world or the specific mindset of the judge. He holds that it is impossible to prescribe universal moral judgments that apply universally, but rather suggests that all moral judgments are only reached after taking in all aspects of a specific morally problematic situation, or MPS.

This view of moral deliberation is very different from more traditional views because it does not seek to prescribe either objective moral standards or a specific methodology for reaching moral decisions. While other philosophers focused on specific duties and virtues, such as Mill with the Good of Utilitarianism and Rand with the Good of Life, Dewey concedes that we take in various principles and ideas, but proposes that we then make a moral judgment in light of the actual present situation. Furthermore, Dewey says that we can make the best moral judgment when we consider our moral dilemma with open minds, without attempting to fit it to a specific rule, but rather taking in the situation aesthetically and making a moral judgment “in light of present circumstances.” This is what Dewey calls “valuing.” After the MPS happens, we may choose to re-evaluate the former situation and reach a different moral judgment. Dewey calls this second step “valuation,” which we can then use as one of the inputs in a future similar moral situation.

The advantage and utility of Dewey’s view comes its accuracy in describing the actual process of making moral judgments. It is hard to argue any specific point Dewey makes because it seems natural to an open-minded person to take all factors into consideration and make moral judgments that are true to particular circumstances rather than particular dogmas. The problem with such a process is that an empirical description of the world is not a prescription for what “ought” to be done. For example, if we had to make a choice between repaying a debt to a friend or defaulting on our debt, no amount of empirical analysis will derive forth a moral judgment. We may decide that “in the context of the situation” our friend will benefit by X and we will lose a smaller amount X/2 when we pay back our loan, but this fact is not by itself a moral judgment, since we may not care about the well-being of others. Even if we decide that we will both benefit by paying back our debt, this is still only an empirical quality of the world, not a prescription to do “what is good for you/others.” Dewey would likely counter by saying that ethical judgments are done in the “consciousness of something to be done” (EW 3:108) But this is just saying that we need to act on our decision --it is not a guide for making a decision. Knowing that it is in my self interest to pay back debts and knowing that I must act on my conclusions is not by itself a prescription to pay back the loan. What is missing here, clearly, is a moral standard – here, it is one of self interest. This analysis can be applied to all of Dewey, for no amount of factual knowledge and information about the most effective action in a particular situation will be any good without a moral standard or value to connect the “is” to the “ought.”

Another problem is Dewey’s exclusively reliance on our immediate moral judgments. Dewey believes that moral judgment can only be valid in light of present circumstances, which means that an individual can make two different moral judgments during and after a morally problematic situation and be right both times because he is consistent to the context of the judgment at the time of decision. The problem with such a notion is that immediate moral judgments are biased by the present as judgments about past actions are biased by fading memories. Nevertheless, there exists an objective past the valuation of which has the advantage of reflection and consideration of all factors without the bias of actually being in the situation and being pressured to decide a certain way because of instinct, peer pressure, sensual pressures (such as trying to refuse cheesecake when it right in front if you) and other bias. Thus, the process of valuation leads to inherently more valid moral judgments than valuing. While ideally we would make open-minded and unbiased judgments in both situations, the fact that sensual and instinctive pressures lead to gaps in logic means that we must make immediate moral judgments when practical constrains call for them, but re-evaluate them in post-reflection to form a more accurate judgment.

A significant aspect of Dewey’s philosophy is that he views the meaning of moral life as a present process rather than a destination towards any kind of goal. This idea is consistent with much of “folk” philosophy, which often says things like “the meaning of life comes from the journey, not the destination” This is a very useful idea, because many people waste their lives striving for distant goals and never stop to enjoy what they have achieved in the process. Such a pursuit is likely to lead to old age without a feeling that anything meaningful was achieved in life, and rightly so because all of the persons achievements very probably experienced without meaning or enjoyment but rather as a step to an unreachable goal.

4. Dewey’s Democracy

The word “democracy” has recently become a political catchphrase that has been used to describe so many various political systems that it has lost meaning as a specific system of government. The most common definition of democracy is a government that is ruled by the people and for the people it governs. The American version of democracy would add social equality and respect for the individual to this definition. Dewey’s definition of democracy is a much wider one because it is closely tied to his ethics and is more of a way of life than a political system.

Dewey’s vision of the ideal democracy is one that focuses on the quality of interaction and extends personal openness and richness of context to a community level. He extends the values of individual decision making to a group level by stressing such values as sensitivity to context, receptivity to the opinions of others, and the ability to place oneself in others situation to see thing from other peoples point of out. Another important point for Dewey is abstaining from individual ideologies in decision making, as Dewey believes that the political life of today’s democracies has been corrupted by individuals who view everything in light of their particular ideology and refuse or are unable to consider the facts in light of the particular situation. There are two main threats to Democracy that Dewey sees -- the visions of Orwell and Huxley, and they have to do with his view of negative and positive freedom. The Orwellian world of 1984 is devoid of negative freedom (or any sort of freedom for that matter) – individuals are unable to lead their lives as they please, with every move being monitored by Big Brother. The Huxley world is one devoid of positive freedom – individuals in Brave New World supposedly have negative freedom, but no intelligent discourse, no ability to interact with each other on a truly intelligent basis or consideration for anything but their own hedonistic pleasures that derive from their enjoyment of mass-produced goods, drugs, or promiscuous sex. Dewey values negative freedom as the presence of intelligent, reflective, and open-minded discourse on every level – from a single family to a whole nation.

The virtue of Dewey’s abstinence from sticking to a single political ideology is useful because it reflects the great majority of citizens – who do not hold one view or the other when it comes to political questions, but view things on a case by case basis –hence they are known as moderates.

It is also hard to argue with the importance of such values as openness, sensitivity to context and aesthetic and meaningful discussion. (Most politicians, quite clearly, have never heard of such virtues.) Nevertheless, Dewey’s view is deeply flawed on many levels. The basic problem with Dewey’s view of democracy can be explained as the lack of absolute individual rights just as the problem with his view of moral deliberation is the lack of absolute moral standards. To give an example, suppose the question of welfare comes up. The choice is between property rights and the right to enjoy one’s productive work and social equity. It is true that intelligent discussion is important in answering such a dilemma, but at some point the values of individual rights (to property) and equity will conflict. No amount of contextual knowledge, empirical analysis, shared perspective from the point of view of the various parties will solve the basic conflict between these basic values. These values come from a basic difference in the understand of human nature and the nature of rights – and while a compromise in policy can be reached, a consensus that comes from a compromise in ideology cannot. The basic dilemma is that a better understanding of the world is not itself a moral directive --- even when an X benefit to the poor and Y loss to the taxpayer is agreed upon, no agreement can be reached without basic moral values to evaluate and weight the two.

Another problem Dewey’s democracy is that he misses the basic and sole purpose of government – that is, to protect individual rights. Dewey’s criticism of materialism and consumerism with his view of positive freedom leads him to a socialist/welfare state view of government. While it could be argued that the empirical evidence of the failure of socialism in the 20^th century would have changed Dewey’s mind, the more basic problem is that socialism (or any mixed-economy) state takes decision-making power away from the individual and stifles the intelligent decision-making ability of individuals that Dewey values so much. The empirical evidence for this is that no socialist state (including Huxley’s world, which was very a totalitarian welfare that lacked the right to do anything but consume) has had an intelligent discourse when it came to robbing the wealth of its producers in order to give to the needy. The more fundamental problem is that the right and choice to consume is a basic freedom of expression that is just as important to the exchange of ideas in society as communal discourse. The choice of what to produce and consume is a choice of values – it is a statement that good X is the tool to the pleasure and enjoyment of my life. To say that individual rights (to property) must be sacrificed if the community values (economic) equity is to sacrifice one type of freedom for the false pretence of another. Even if this decision is reached by all the standards of open discourse that Dewey promotes, the fact that theft in the form of welfare limits our freedom and thus violate the principles of democracy cannot be avoided.

This brings up the point of individual versus collective action. Dewey does not recognize such a distinction, as he sees all truly democratic action as being beneficial to the community at large as well as its individuals. There is however a key difference between private and government action --- private action relies on the free interaction of individuals whereas all government action relies on the use of force.

It is hard to say how Dewey would view today’s society, but he would likely be pleased by a liberal culture that stresses the importance of taking in all points of view and the need to evaluate critically ones own beliefs in light of other peoples cultures. He would be disappointed however by the radicalism of politics and the view that openness to different ideas comes from diversity in race/gender/class/origin rather than a true diversity in ideas and an interaction and discussion between people of various backgrounds.