Much of what claims to be ethics or moral philosophy is really moralising: a version of preaching in which the congregation is told what wrongs to avoid and what the right behaviour should be. The scene is all too well known. The priest, minister or pastor thunders from the pulpit against fornication, sloth, murder, slander, idol-worshipping, bestiality, poisoning the neighbour’s hedge, fighting over the flower roster, necrophilia and harbouring evil thoughts against the conservative party (all without distinction); by contrast the upright items include not lusting after one’s neighbour’s spouse (or indeed one’s neighbour), not stealing, keeping the Sabbath, telling the truth, supporting one’s community, stoning one’s child should they give cheek and giving handsomely to the priest’s Mercedes Benz fund.
The list may alter, but unfortunately too much of what passes for ethics is really a version of such moralising. Two forms of such moralising make their appearance with uncanny frequency: the care of the self and how we should react to and behave towards the ‘other’. How should I care for my body, my mind and soul? What is required to stay healthy, vigorous, sensitive and tolerant? On this score, ethics comes down to asserting that the way I live my life, or at least would like to live my life, is the way you should live yours. As for the ‘other’, the question becomes: what is the appropriate way to respond to the stranger in our midst, the refugees from that country where our government sent the army to shoot the shit out of them, the immigrants with a vastly different cultural, social a religious background to the one with which we are accustomed? And how should we respond to that greatest ‘other’ of all, the non-human, or as it sometimes called, the ‘more-than-human-other’? In these cases, ethics becomes the process of producing a code of acceptable conduct for relating to those ‘others’. Both the care of the self and the response to the ‘other’ are categories in which the term ‘ethical’ is thrown about with careless abandon – indeed, they are often assumed to constitute ethics as such. Such moralising is really a bowdlerisation of ethics, a dumbing-down that has not escaped the ubiquity of television programmes (Ophrah Winfrey has much to answer for), self-help manuals, the desire for makeovers and the obnoxious need to ‘sell’ oneself in order to make any headway in the world.
23 December, 2009 at 1:24 am
I hadn’t thought of the Mercedes Benz fund. Now I’ll have to suspend my “Go to Australia and meet Roland Boer” fund.
Feliz Navidad!
23 December, 2009 at 8:30 am
Ah, what a shame!
23 December, 2009 at 12:40 pm
this is a good post. i think there is an aversion to ‘strong’ ethics in the name of openness to the other. i sympathise with the latter move, but i wonder if openness necessitates a forced flattening of competing discourses on what is ‘good’, kind of like a liberal-pop bastardisation of Foucault (who ended up suporting Khomeini!) and Derrida.
you’ve probably heard Terry Eagleton’s talk on ‘Marxism and Ethics’(?) I found it a clear articulation of the difference between ‘morality’ and ‘moralising’ for the lay leftist.
http://mp3.lpi.org.uk/resistancemp3/marxism-and-ethics.mp3
so i assume that when you take over, all the Levinas mob might be heading for some re-education. i’m going to go warn them now
23 December, 2009 at 12:45 pm
It’s called ‘the education of desire’.
23 December, 2009 at 12:43 pm
You’ve probably seen the article this is from, as it’s from your side of the ditch:
“It mystifies me that Emanuel Levinas is admired as the great ethical philosopher of responsibility for the other. What stands out for me in his writings are his egregious Eurocentrism, his European-Ashkenazi sequestering and essentialising of Jewish identity, his inhuman support based on the Bible for settler-colonialism in antiquity and the present, his univocal reading of the Bible as centred on universal concern for humanity, his univocal reading of the Bible as centred on universal concern for humanity, and his outlandish racism towards non-Europeans.”
- John Docker, ‘Sacredness and uncaring for the Other: Levinas and Patrick White’, 188-209 in Sacred Australia (2009), 191
Incidentally, there is a very noticeable contrast in perspective between John Docker’s chapter and most of the remainder of the contributions to the book.
23 December, 2009 at 12:46 pm
oops… I accidentally repeated a phrase in the quote.
23 December, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Without name-dropping (too much), John is a good friend of mine, having set up the Committee for the Dismantling of Zionism. He doesn’t aim small. Oh yes, and Levinas is just a little too Zionist for John – obviously. Butler struggles with this aspect in her Giving an Account of Oneself.