Wisconsin College of the Air; Introduction to the human enterprise; 19; Morality desires

Problem is of the moral life. First Professor I was topic in this lecture. Continuing the discussion he began last week and now here is Professor Otto A. Position which I took last time was that every one of us is an outgoing source of wants and desires and that we are active in trying to realize realize those desires. Do you agree with that. Or you disagree with anybody I disagree with anybody agree with. This you're lying when you agree with it. Yes you do. Anybody else. Good. I don't see how you can deny. There are people maybe would not I don't see how you can. So we don't get any rise on this question whether you agree or disagree with the view that we are a bunch. Of I'll going to desires and that we are active trying to realize that. The finest thing I know of on this side of the question we're talking about is a chapter in a book by William James an

article that he wrote and then got into this janitor. Which was a lecture he delivered at Yale. And then it came down and read it to his seminar. He had it's called the moral philosopher and the moral life. He read it through a seminar he had in that seminar where Dickinson Miller whom you don't know what George saw the ANA whom you know about don't you. Must be most people in the world know George Santayana is one of the great philosophers of our time. Well he was in the seminar. And for $5 I don't know who all of us there. And James himself not only of these young men but James himself thought that this was one of the finest. No I think they every thought that this was the finest single piece of writing and thinking that he ever did. That's. Something you know when you get time you can't do it now but sometime when you get time read the way in which he

makes this conflict of desires and the uniqueness of desire stand up Stand up is very remarkable. That's a very good reading. 1891 or 1890 that's a long time ago in that he says there is a hollowing mob of desires each struggling to get a grieving room for the ideal to which it claims. I've told you before it's hard for me to disagree with. This today. That seems to me overstating. A hollering mob of desires doesn't seem to me to Holland and doesn't meet seem to me to be such a mob. Well all you have to do is get out of the mob area and watch it when there is one that when the mob isn't there isn't yelling I suppose. It's up. Well I was thinking about that it it occurred to me it's like like the cracks going out of the station in Chicago. Always a fascinating thing how those different tracks all run out but there is a place where they begin the

conversation where it has to be decided what track they're going out on and I suppose in the station there isn't the holly model desires but when it gets down to this moment of competition then there is anyway that's what he says and it comes pretty near being right nearly being right anyway. Then we might let it go at that. There are times there are places when it's a holiday mama design. We used to have an editor of the cardinal here he was and I think he would have agreed with me that this is an overstatement but he went to Texas in the army. And no it was my entry was a feature writer on the card with me when he went to Texas. I got a letter from him. And he said Have you ever seen a mob when it's intent upon bashing a man's skull and I've just watched one. I wish all of you professors at the Ritz

at the University of Wisconsin could have that experience. You would have a sense of the reality. Of the urgency under which people act. That you've never had before and I shall never forget. Well all of this is an overstatement understatement. There are conflicts we have conflicts within ourselves we have conflicts outside. And more ality moral philosophy. Both of them. Routing is what form of program and Moral Philosophy is a theory as to the way in which this should be settled and I want to ask you another question. Which. Is primary. You might put these questions down because you can use those in your examination and trying to help you. She just introduced that when I read it when I see a book

like that and this isn't it. I would wake up this person was there this person kept and that. Which is primarily morality or desires the desires of mankind. Well Miss Mary what do you think. That's the way you see. You learn that kind of lesson too while that just makes trouble for the man who asked the question to ask him a question. What do I mean by primary I mean which comes first which has the highest authority. As morality. Boss desires or do desires should they laws morality wage which is derived. And which is the original. That isn't the answer to the question. Yes you can. But don't you want to.

Which. Wich Shall we take as the original this. All right good we've got your guide for and you should know my asking it as to first in time then desires. Sure. Right. There's a child comes into the world. Is there a moral program already operating. Yes. Not in the child but it's already operating and takes the child in charge doesn't it. So it isn't in time. That's not what I'm talking about. I mean logically. Logically morally. Spiritually whatever you want to which ought to be there is a. Hears and hears it. Let me ask you this two page 146 very bottom one forty seven.

Let us remind ourselves that we are proceeding on the assumption that what people want from life not only some of them but all of them is the primary authority. The first of our primary top of aren't what they ought to aim at can only be determined by observing what they do. Amen. That's the same thing. Do you think that's right I think that's wrong. In your mind in the U.S. I got myself in trouble because I'm supposed to written the book. All right. I wish I could get a clean cut answer to that. You're you're all right though to say it all right.

But it isn't what I want. Please. While these primaries because there are destructive design. Then ruin life. You know what you're saying. All right. Morality would direct desires and then for all his in charge the theory morality the program around him round it just for short. We must be in charge. It is primary that is logically and morally Reimer. Well what's a month. Yours is our primary so far as surveys are the right place. That is the whole race.

To start. At least. But if they were if they were. You see you're taking a position and you're taking a position also on the morality of primer. Oh yeah. Yes. The thing about the use I need destructive desires. Are exceptional. For that me. If they weren't. Then the situation would be different so yeah. Well rapid fire are only natural. And they're a good start. That it's safe to say that we grant that there is an aggressive tendency in human beings and it can be directed toward a war that is not necessarily imitated or is everywhere the same.

So what I mean is that our morality should seek to cooperate on these destructive desires and such America is to reach out. Or something like that with our breasts completely of their their inherent right to live. I think God desires all that the route the route of the race tires or. One. More reality. Right it is ours. Rally's that's interesting you say morality is not. Sort of a consensus of desire. Are you doing away with morality altogether. Nothing but desires. Oh right something right

making that Mary-Clare in the very clear if the morality doesn't exist in itself. That is you think it shouldn't exist in itself. You can say it doesn't exist and it's all because you can't play it. I mean there are people who absolutely disagree with you on that we've done this in itself. But it doesn't need to you're saying and as far as you're concerned it doesn't it's the outgrowth of desire. Why that's another be what we are going so. This is I would say. Rather social the XYZ root of that. Well I. It was I thought well what was I do.

I wonder if we've gotten lost I appreciate what you're saying but. I'm getting a little confused Navar morality I mean a scheme of conduct. And scheme of con is like primary in that second place. You've been reading a philosophy to do that what you say. And that man you just the minute I want to get this straight you been reading a flawed looking philosophy. The man says he's basically that says that man is basically good is that it. I do mean God. You know. What it says.

Very interesting no argument one that has been reading a book according to which the desires of men are basically good. That makes their desires Mark. Then there isn't any primary business. There isn't any primacy of desires over morality or morality over desires. She wants to know whether this is not groom theory of life. Well let's keep following anybody else or yes. Liz Ross there with where you are right.

Why are you still with him. Are you hearing that's taking away people act isn't that what you're saying. Morality is within the structure of the way people act. And desires arise out of specific lacks in the situation. And the things the desire is shaped wrong. But. There was no. There are no rules or no ideals to shape the conduct of airplanes before the rare planes and after they came in you got Couldn't you had to get new

problems arose and you got them out of that. Way you know. Right like that would you get a nod of approval from Mister Mayor down here. She's saying to yourself that's what I say said to begin with. You know they've been going all around this they've gotten to where I was. Well let's leave it there for a moment live. We've opened that up enough. Problem isn't it. But the statement in this book but we're reading now in 146 and 147 is flat. Very very I don't mean it's. A bar that they have final but it says it very slightly. That what we ought. To aim at.

Can only be determined by observing what we do in math. I said it isn't final because a great many people disagree with it. Mr. Dunn I was just interviewed or I don't know how long ago but his interview was just sent to me by. My walk with John I think it was and he took us to task mildly as he always does nicely but very directly for something success. That's our habit in that success. And he has a moral standard a standard of life a philosophy of life that shall I say prevents him know that it makes not all attractive. He seeks something else with not success. He works hard. Gives himself to what he is doing and does not seek success that's what he said in this interview that Mr. Michael Johns.

When he used to be here he's written on that theme since that time he thinks that this kind of business that I just stated to you here that that theory and the theory that some of you have been talking for is atrocious. Atrocious very immoral too. There is one good in life. And that is excellence. And that supersedes everything. If you don't desire to be excellent then. Of course you have the one desire. And don't. Accuse me of getting in the contradiction for him though I'm not I don't talk that way. Excellence is the ideal and all desires have to conform to that he said. In one of the books. It isn't necessary that we should be happy that any man should be happy. It isn't necessary that the American people should be happy.

It isn't necessary. Even that you should survive or that the American people should survive. The one thing that is necessary is that you should not be contactable. That's morality and commanding desires bring desires in line with them and I don't know but it seems to me that Mr Data has a view to which brings our consuming desire to succeed into law and commands it drys commanded and the right thinks of itself as superior to it. I can't but mention to you remarked that a student of Mr McCall John made. When he read this thing. We do not need to be happy. But we must not be contemptible. He said. Yeah I agree with that because the bad thing about being contemptible is that makes you so damned unhappy.

There you have the issue. Well all right now we're going on. Number one. Courting William James and then I'm going to quote from the human enterprise. Which it seems to me those two men are working somewhat together so far as a sanction being feels anything to be good. He makes it go. The most universal principle. Is. That the essence of good is simply to satisfy the man's. That's a very strong statement. Yes and some good sides I demand. Anybody who feels a thing to be good. Makes it good. Which is only saying in a way that William James rarely does.

In a sort of a tautology if a thing feels to be good it feels to be good and that's all there is to be said about it. You can't bring it up to a bar of any kind of a standard and say that is not good it is good as it feels to be good. And human enterprise says it this way. We shall take 137. We shall take our cue from universal human behavior and make this the goal the most livable life. For all who have a life to live. Most Livable its terms of how you feel about the look. And he says that almost everybody would agree with that which includes you then. But not. So. If he added as he feels he must add I get so or very close to James and maybe even beyond James more radical than James.

And each person to be the final judge of what most livable means for him. For a good life. Is to be actually good. It must be found good by him who lives it. A look at this interpretation you can contemplate this interpretation of the good life. The good life is the life that feels good not the life that is approved that's good. A life that feels good. That's what these That's the pollution these people take. These writers agree that knowing that. The good is that which appeals to you as good. And another way of saying it would be that what appeals to a person is as such neutral from the moral point of view it has no moral quality whatever it just is what it is it's good and it's satisfy it's appealing.

If it gets moral character it will have to get it in some other way but it hasn't done it to begin with itself I think. What I'm saying probably agree with that to what I read that's what the human body. Secondly these writers agree on another. Moment. That we must have some method of adjudicating conflicts between wants and demands and desires just because desire is just as much of a priority and. I was going to say right but I don't mean more oh I dunno. As any other. There's no reason why one person should give way to the good of another. Why should it. Unless there's some. Some other consideration comes in. His good is his good and it's good and the other good is his good and it's good. But there must be some adjustment of that and they give two reasons Lord. If

I understand them one is this early on from Plato we I'm criticized. Life is not fit for human living. I wonder whether they have a right to do that. The UN criticized life is not fit for human living what they mean by that. You're not here when you're not up to your boss and your possibilities your moral intellectual spiritual possibilities. What's not to do with it. Up to the point where we have gone. But they take that position. I'm criticized life. Is not good for human living. It's Plato and that. I should say practically all of philosophers all the way down and all of the last years who are interested in this problem today all would agree on that and moralist and ministers and lots of other people as well that's one thing. But it's questionable whether they can maintain that. Secondly

the UN criticized life is practical. On of oil. That's a different story. You can't practice it. Without destruction. To the whole scheme in which. You live. In what you desire. If that's all and that's what both of these people claim then that's that's south. The other may not be. Then they agree that you begin with the moral philosophy in the moral set up which was inherited from your ancestors and you must take all this seriously and they all do that and I'm anxious to call your attention to that because these men whatever they may be called they have various names. They're all people who don't like to be tagged but they always are tagged and especially now that is they're being attacked.

Under various tags because they're all relativists. They all have a very deep respect for white men in the past have done. That's true of William James. That's true of John Joyce. That's true of all the pragmatists who are worthy to be counted in the group of the men who are doing anything in the field at all. And that's true also of the writer of the human enterprise. The presumption this is the way James puts it. The presumption in cases of conflict must always be in favor of the conventionally recognized good. I don't know whether I want to call it that where not. What. That's all I do want to do well. What. You have ten commandments. Unless you're going to improve on them. They're pretty good to begin with. I thought. That you say Mr Russell. Improvement on the

commandments the first commandment was there is nothing uncertain. You should take nothing. I mean you should take nothing as absolutely certain. Everything you've done for you take nothing as absolutely certain and a monk in Massachusetts. Took him to task for that did you see that letter in which he said. Yes Mr Russell wants nothing. To be certain. Except. His doctrine that nothing is to be certain. Something always does someone always does like. When you take a liberal point of view. All right then you began your BBM and now we come to a point. Remember that some. Tennis flow I'd like to know what part. 25 I'm. Having settled this point for the sake of argument this morning that we began.

They have to do something with this conflict of desires. Each one of which had just as much right to be desired as any other. We have to do something with it and the way to begin is to accept the precipitate of past experience. Age is a past experience of people who have been just as good as the best of us today of trying to do the best with life and we have their record of what they thought was the proper thing to do and we begin with that. And then Mr James says and I'm quoting him not. Entirely and then another man and both very interesting I think every now and then our someone is born with the right to be original. And by breaking all the moral rules in a certain place bring in a total condition of things more ideal than would have followed had the rules been back.

Every now and then if someone is born with that right. If you read the history of moral reform you'll find that all of our reformers did that. Then they always said what Jesus said. You've been told by me the whole time. But I say unto you the exact opposite of what they told us and that what he said. SOCRATES The great Minor Prophets of history of Israel did so much to develop our moral outlook on the world. They said it too. And they lived for them died for it too. As Socrates and Jesus did for this innovation. Fall The question is. Who is this. That is born with the right to break these rules. Are you one of them. In point of fact.

Game says there are no absolute evil. And. That I'm no I'm not on moral good and the highest ethical life for you and for me and for everybody of course. However a few may be called to bear its burdens me downs I note again you but there are a few are a few. Maybe call the bear its burdens concious of all times in great king. The rules which have grown too narrow for the actual case is too narrow for the actual situation under which we are living. There is but one unconditional commandment. Notice how he can say things when he really gets right at saying you can say. There is but one unconditional commandment. Which is that we should seek incessantly. With fear and trembling not cock sure

wish you'd seek incessantly with fear and trembling. So to avoid and to act. As to bring about the very largest total universe of good which we can see. Abstract rules indeed can help but they help the less. In proportion. As our intuitions are more piercing the more more moral inside a person have the more moral interest he has the more penetrating his vision is the more these rules will not apply. And our vocation is the stronger for the moral life. You agree with that position. We think about that. When I think about that. Silence. All lead to the next with.

The very interesting man I don't suppose they've come go away I'll be Jack. An English editor. Over Hibbard journal it was for a long time. Died some years ago. He had this idea goes beyond Jane's not all there are there are a few people who on certain occasions should break rules. But every person who wishes to act morally. Who wishes to act up to his highest. Must. Be creative and it tells you that and I'm going to read a little bit of it in a book called The alchemy they aka me of thought. And his essay is morality by the card. See ID. That's the morality most of us live by you have no respect for right here by the card is immorality. Creative

original for all is what he wishes to keep. You have. This interesting illustration. Imitating the Good Samaritan. I don't know how much you go to church often in church. You've been told that's the thing to do. I have I do and I have been told it many times and this is what he said. When the Good Samaritan showed mercy on the wounded man. He was not imitating another Good Samaritan who had done the same thing on a previous occasion. Nor was he remembering some precepts which had been drilled into him by the masters of his youth and the pastors of his manhood. He was low for. His action and far from giving effect to any fixed rule that might have been taught him by contemporary Marlice.

Want of flack violation of the respectable moral opinion of the clime and place. How then can we imitate the Good Samaritan we can with that the Good Samaritan but how. Do we imitate him not by reproducing his act. But by being just as original just as creative just as in different toward vacuous morality as he was without the power of carving out for ourselves some expression of the good will with no existing rules either cover or contemplate. There will never be the faintest flavor of the Good Samaritan about anything that we do or attempt to do. Every moral act has inspired. This original. When you think of that. I think that. Good and the not

so easy to carry out. But good good and it's there we know we know what he's driving while we have a lot of things to do. Let me just sum them up. I was going on this chapter to three theories of settling this business. Three schemes and you can read them. Might makes right. That's one of the strongest one of the most widely prevailing one of the oldest. Just get away with what you can get away with and after time. What you get away with will become conquered and then people will regard that as right. One of the three Some of us and the Republic that makes that argument in Kalak please makes an argument somewhat like that but somewhat different too. But cowardly says that very straight justice is the interest of the stronger. Right is the interest of the stronger.

Bad in the interest of the weaker let's all are restored. And I think in the human enterprise there is one point that I think you ought to lift up and look at. And that is that. Might makes right. Is not. Right because it's an exercise of power. We have to exercise power and it's not that because it's exercise of physical power even the. Might makes right is essential in forcing the interest of the other person off the platform. However you may do that. You may do it with the highest motives in the world. You may do it in the interest of religion. You may go out in the end with the mysticism a do it me a list of education or I don't know or the mark or sea or anything else. But any. Behavior or any theory that pushes the other person off.

OB without IME puts him off the bonds of consideration. Military might makes right and then you go on to the supernatural theory. And the argument that's made in this book and one argument I think I'd like to have you bear in mind is that the supernaturalistic theory of morality splits man into parts maybe should be split that makes a distinction between his Laura nature and his higher nature maybe that's what you want to do. But I always pictured myself in this way. Voting we have this. Let this be a man. And he has. He's chained to a lot of poles. Right tickle. Mike Nichols. His mouth come down you're too full of you really excitable. Oh. And then. You have.

Some war. Room with both of them. Why. Good the food good and good. So he's changed according to the supernatural. The theory of all the. Training. Not only change but he also holds on. He wants to be there. And then he walked away by his ideals of truth goodness and beauty and the struggle. Instead of the struggle being. To make the best we can of life he has in addition to that. This enduring struggle. Between those two great. Ideals. Earthly ideals and the supernatural ideal. But there is this and this and that. And I want to put that in dangerous times I want to read and conclude from them these cries of this from James. The deepest difference.

Right there. In the moral life. The. Other way. With one of the what the way he sharpens things is no fuzzy edges. The deepest difference. Right there. In the monologue. Is the difference between the easy going. And us drawing us move. And easygoing mood is the one that shrinks from taking on the problem. The strenuous mood is the one that takes it off even at suffering. Then Rooney Mr. James raises the question. How are you going to get people in the strenuous mood. When I'm not in it. And most people aren't. They have the germ of it but they're not in it. How are you going to get them strenuous enough.

To fight for what they consider right to stand for what to suffer for what they consider right which is one of the things that is. More necessary now it's been for some time. It was just one thing that can do this. And that is God. If God is on the side of the strenuous mood. Then you're OK. Consequently. You have to when you think about it. Kloster laid God as standing for the strenuous mood against the strenuous mood or you can't make the thing Rush. But just before he closes he says this and I leave a cue to harmonize those two things. The solving word. For the learned and young learned man alike. Lies. In the last resort. In the dumb willingness and unwillingness of

their in carrier character. And nowhere else. That's the way you're made. That's the way you know if you don't care then you don't care. I mean the only thing that can make you care is a dictatorial government on earth. Or in the world to come. OK. You heard another in a selected number of lectures from the course that loss of fee and human enterprise recorded in the classroom a professor might thought. Today's lecture concluded a discussion of the problems of the moral life in his next lecture Professor Otto takes up the subject of creative bargaining This is the Wisconsin College of the air.