Philosophy                   SPRING ETHICS CONFERENCE 1995                  George E. Derfer

 The Moral Imagination*

 All culture and its artifacts imply a human base.

All beliefs and knowledge-claims presuppose a face;

in culture and its human base, values do exist.

in knowing and its human face, morals so insist;

Then teaching that ignores these truths, does so at our peril.

And learning that intends less, becomes so very sterile;

So what, then, of this teasing concept "moral imagination"?

What of its haunting reach, its scope, and organization?

It is part and parcel of who we are as earthly creatures.

Basic to our integrity, as learners and as teachers;

For ethics and morality do not begin after our creating.

Nor values and responsibility await our play and tinkering;

No, moral imagination comes in-and-with our life itself, so deep.

It empowers all our thinking from the start, a promise due to keep;

It's buried in the genetic web so delicate and finely spun,

It's evident in our technology when at last its task is done;

But its home, alas, is not this body and earth alone,

It strives always for "heaven"--for separation to atone;

Come join me in this song of praise to what inspires vision and hope,

Come share images and metaphors that gives to life sum and scope;

Let those of us privileged to "profess" do it whole and full of grace,

Closing the gap between fact and value among gender, culture, race.

(* The concept "moral Imagination" was used in a paper entitled "Creative-Critical

Living and Thinking: Towards a Paradigm Shift" (October 29, 1989) that I wrote while

grappling with Cal Ploy's historic Mission Statement and Goals, e. g., about "depth of

understanding" and "discernment of values" about "fostering...the interaction among

the technologies, the arts, and the sciences." Moral imagination is the essential link)

Philosophy, Ethics, and Metaethics

by  George E. Derfer

The purpose of this brief statement is twofold:  first, to provide some basic and functional definition of the words/concepts “philosophy”, “ethics”, and “metaethics”;  second, to suggest the relationship that exists among these concepts – these active concerns.

Philosophy is the self conscious process of reflection in which one grapples with, among other things and themes, the creation and criticism of meaning (in general), of knowledge-claims (in particular).  While this grappling is personal, it need not be merely private;  no, the implied struggle entails participation in forces which include affirmations, anticipations, actions, even attempts at analysis and accountability (personal-interpersonal).  To underscore the personal and practical (action-oriented) aspects of this “self-conscious process”, the word philosophizing has, of late, come into popular parlance.

Ethics is a branch – a subset – of philosophy, of philosophizing;  “ethics” is, paradoxically speaking, the self-conscious, critical study of human meanings in the context of values that relate to character and conduct believed to be worthy with respect to an implied claim about “the good” or “the significant”.  The philosopher-as-ethicist inquires into the nature of values, into value-assumptions, “value-judgments” – into moral-accountability (in general), into the logic of “moral reasoning” (in particular).  And, like philosophy/philosophizing, the sense of active involvement so essential to the work and study entailed in “doing ethics” has, recently, been given the awkward term “ethicizing”.

Metaethics is the study of the central concerns and key concepts discerned in “doing ethics”, even in “moral reasoning”.  But (as the prefix “meta” suggests, i.e., “going beyond”)  metaethics moves the critical process beyond the problems addressed and the value-judgments deduced – moves “beyond” the historical and existential situation of specific cases and, instead, focuses intense interest on the following:

1. analyzes the language believed appropriate and practiced in ethical discourse, in “moral reasoning” e.g.,  What is meant by the term “good”?   What is meant by the use of “obligation language”  i.e.,  “should”,  “must”, etc.? 

2. analyzes the implied rational foundations for “ethical systems” and for “moral principles” / ”moral judgments” e.g., To what aspects of existence or experience does an “ethical system” appeal?   How is this “aspect” known?

3. analyzes the implications that seem to follow if it can be shown, for instance, that “moral Principles” have an objective basis in reality e.g., What kind of world is it that, among other things and events and forces, has as one of its essential features creatures who are value-conscious?   Creatures who evoke ideals, even trust and hope?