This author brings up a LOT of points that first came to my attention when I read G.E.M. (Elizabeth) Anscombe's 1958 essay, "Modern Moral Philosophy." (So she anticipated Leff's points by 52 years.)
Anscombe’s MMP is an extraordinary piece of work. She boldly challenged the sheer relativism of almost all 20th century moral philosophers, as rubbish. (She didn’t use the word “rubbish,” but if you read her careful academic prose, I think you’d get the point.) Standing practically alone against the entire academic philosophical establishment, she defined, described, and pulled apart ‘consequentialism’, the view that there are no acts, no matter how evil, which cannot be justified if one is aiming for good consequences.
Think of the most patently wicked act you can imagine. Say, pronouncing and carrying out the death penalty on a person you know to be innocent. If consequentialism were right, then it would be legitimate to argue that executing innocent persons could be not only right, but a duty under certain circumstances. The Scriptures tell us that this is abominable and forbidden by Almighty God; but even without reference to religious law, this is completely outside of the bounds of Natural Law, of common decency, and of human civilization.
Yet so-called “ethicists” who think there really IS no right or wrong, still use terms like “Moral Law” as if one could be obliged to commit sodomy, or torture, or rape, or murder, if there were a good enough reason. It’s as if God Almighty had said, “Thou shalt not commit moral abominations --- unless thou are really, really, REALLY tempted.”
According to Anscombe (and here he was writing in the language of, and referencing the assumptions of, secular academic ethics), if one does not acknowledge a divine Moral Lawgiver, one should be honest and stop using big authority-words like “Moral Law.” She says it’s dishonest.
Anscombe also said secular ethicists "should not" use terms like "ought," "right and wrong," "good and evil" or even "should and should not"! Otherwise, they are like a person who uses a big authority-word like “verdict” even though he has abolished judges and juries; or a person who claims to be an expert on ribs and joints, when he denies the existence of cells, tissues and bones.
This essay hit academic ethics----- like--- a ----bomb. It basically blew the stuffing out of the makeshift, ethically minimalist house of cards known as modern moral philosophy.
It remains a dilemma even today. Classic "Natural Law" philosophers maintain that moral law can be discovered by human reason, on the basis of a deep enough and wide enough examination of what it means "to be human" and what behaviors form the basis of true human flourishing (as persons, and as societies.)
But the problem seems to be that many people do not take a "deep enough and wide enough" view of what it means "to be human." Aristotle, Gautama Siddhartha, Marcus Aurelius, and Confucius tried, and we wouldn't do badly to look into what they wrote. Much of it embodies the "natural virtues," (courage, truthfulness, and so forth) and is naturally honorable.
But I fear that modern cultures have fallen far below the best of classical pagan antiquity. It would be hard for us --- on the basis of our secular culture, absent the Divine Judeo-Christian heritage --- to aspire to, or even recognize, Aristotelian virtue.
.
.
P.S. anybody else here interested in Anscombe? I have something real interesting I could send you.
.
.
I'm interested. It has been years since I dove into the "footless stocking without any leg" of modern moral philosophy and I enjoyed reading Leff's treatise... what ya got?
(Substituting the word veridical or veriferous for valid, that is.)
Please send me the additional materials.
I understand that I am under no obligation and that no salesman will call; but if I do not cancel within 30 days I may be billed a low monthly service fee of $5.95 (not valid in Alaska, Hawaii, or Kenya); and that I should always close the cover before striking. This material printed or recycled electrons. No philosophers were hurt in the production of this message.
Cheers! Cheers!
Hi, I came across this while looking for something else.
Are you still willing and able to dig up and/or send me the "additional materials" on Anscombe?
Hope all is well with you and Don-o.
Cheers!