Summary and Commentary, Essay Example

At the beginning of the essay, the author discusses hedonism, its attempt to overcome the dichotomy between objectivism and subjectivism, and its ultimate failure, primarily due to a lack of an adequate representation of its own view of the world.  In this sense, the ideas of hedonism are not necessarily wrong, they just focus on the wrong aspects of the real world.

The author makes the claim that, ultimately, the ideas that hedonism express have gotten it backwards.  These ideas are rooted in the idea expression of pleasure of something that is entirely subjective.  However, they are argued to have some sense of objective grounding. “It is our recognition of goodness that brings pleasure, especially higher pleasure.” (83)  By this argument, the ideas that the individual has concerning what can be considered ‘good’ will directly impact what they find to be ‘pleasurable’.

An important distinction that the author makes between their ideas and those of hedonism is the object of their considerations of pleasure. They argue that “we shall only require that wherever it is the case that pleasures are good-even if they are always good-they are not good on the simple account of their being pleasures.” (83)  This is the basis for their understanding of how morality should be grounded in the natural order of the real world.

The next step, then, for the author is to discuss an ‘axiology’ that will allow for this new interpretation.  Essentially, the axiology can be objective only if the definitive goodness or badness of the idea in question is based on established guidelines as opposed to a biased judgment. Furthermore, the universality of the idea can only be established if these guidelines are competent, that is, there are no contradictions inherent in their definition.

The author indicates that these ideas can be established through their reflection of the real world, and the lessons that it has to offer.  “Instead of looking to the proverbial heavens for the ultimate roots of our moral awareness, I look instead to animal awareness” (84)  The author indicates that this awareness is inherent within the human psyche.  They look at nature and see a level of moral understanding embedded in the lives of the animals and their view of the world.

The author finishes by commenting about the moral issues associated with finding good, as good for one being or species will ultimately bring about harm to many others.  This difficulty creates further issues, but also an imperative to understand the world around us.This conclusion presents the understanding of how, even the most altruistically motivated tendencies can create negative consequences for some being in some place.

The author concludes by discussing the issues presented when attempting to prioritize life forms.  Essentially, the argument is made that there should be a standard adopted that, while allowing for the opportunities to protect these life-forms, do not necessarily take precedence over human life.  In this way, a hierarchical understanding of morality can be established.

This essay seems to be the author’s attempts to come to terms with some deeply inherent philosophic issues.  The main issue is how the moral grounds for humanity should be established.  This is difficult, as objective grounds for morality are difficult to establish across a wide range of individuals and, at the same time, deeply subjective moral groundings have no structural integrity, and the need to be embedded within the social structures of society.

The author is presenting a way to resolve this issue.  By allowing for the objective interpretations of subjective needs, the issues can, hopefully, be resolved.  By focusing on what can objectively be considered pleasurable, the problems can be overcome.  However, the issue with this line of though lies with the problem of how these unwanted issues are dealt with.  The author tends to give these examples as solutions, while they inherently present further problems.

The question is about how the related issues should be dealt with.  In this case, it is difficult to discern how the issues that cannot be dealt with objectively will be approached.  Not all issues can be resolved objectively, in the way that the author seems to be presenting them.  This is evident in the way that the author presents their solution, as a simile to a naturally occurring phenomenon.

Finally, the presentation of the natural order of existence, in which animals have a tendency to prioritize their own lives, while at the same time, maintaining a natural coexistence with the rest of the world.  This natural tendency is an interesting place to base the representation of morality.  While I disagree with the conclusion that there can be a hierarchical establishment that objectively determines the outcomes of lives, it is interesting to see the attempt to create one based upon an organic and natural understanding of the world.