The Disparity between Intellect and Character

These materials are made available at this site for the educational purposes of students enrolled at Anne Arundel Community College. They may be protected by U.S. Copyright law and should not be reproduced or transmitted electronically. One photocopy or printout may be made of each article for personal, educational use.

his fiction might shape the way we get along with the children weye tutoring- affect our attitudes toward them, the things we say and do with them.

Yet I wonder whether classroom discussion, per se, can’t also be of help, the skepticism of my student notwithstanding. She had ~ u s h e d me hard, and I started ‘ referring again and again in my classes on moral introspection ta what she had observed and learned, and my studenrs more than got the message. Her moral

‘ righteousness, her shrewd eye and ear for hypocrisy hovered over us, made us un- easy, goaded us.

She challenged us to prove that what we think intellectually can be connected to o u r daily deeds. For some of us, the connection was established rhrough corn- munity service. But that is not the only possible way, 1 asked students to write papers chat told of particular efforts to honor through action the high thoughts we were discussing. Thus goaded ta a certain self-consciousness, I suppose, students made various efforts. I felt that the best of them were small victories, brief epiphan- ies that might otherwise have been overlooked, bu t had great significance for the students in question.

“I thanked someone serving me food in the college cafeteria, and then we got to talking, the first time,” one student wrote. For her, this was a decisive break with her former indifference to others she abstractly regarded as “the people who work on the serving line.” She felt that she had learned something about another’s life and had tried to show respect for rhat life.

The student who challenged me with her angry, melancholy story had pushed me to teach different!^. Now, I make an explicit issue of the more than occasional disparity between thinking and doing, and I ask my students to consider how we ali might bridge that disparity. To be sure, the task of connecting intellect to char- acter is daunting, as Emerson and others well knew, And any of us can lapse into cynicism, turn the moral challenge of a seminar into yet another moment of op- portunism: I’ll get an A this time, by writing a paper cannily extolling myself as a doer of this or that “good deed”!

Still, I know that collcge administrators and faculry members everywhere are struggling with the same issues that I was faced with, and I can testify that many studcnts will respond seriously, in at least small ways, if we make clear that we really believe that the [ink between moral reasoning and action is important to us. My experience has given me at least a measure of hope that moral reasaning and reflection can somehow be integrated into students’-and teachers’- lives as they actually live them.

QUESTIONS FOR ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSCON

1. Is there any significant relation between intelligence and moral character? The case study presented by Coles gives several famous examples. Can you think of your own examples to support your answer?

2. The student is upset with the lcvel of phoniness and hypocrisy she finds at the prestigious university. Do you think hypocrisy is always a sign of immorality? Is a person without hypocrisy therefore moral?

3. Does the case study support the view that morality is instinctive or learned? if instinctive (or innate), how can you account for the variety of moral beliefs people hold? If learned, who d o you think are or should be our moral teachers?

W l L L l A M GRAHAM SUMNER

Folkways

A professor of sorial science at Yale, wrjliam Sumner [ i 840-4 9 403 was at theJorPJront

oJ the celtural ~Sativism movemmt, wbich holds that moral good and bad are based

soldy aM an ivtdrvidaal society’s sense of what would promote its own gromth. Ethical rtlafivism bas always been a thorn in tbe side oJmoral philosopbm who seek rome uni-

versal truth to subport an ethicat valve or principle. Sumner’s distinct contribution is the empirical widmcr awd clear-cut reasoning he user to articulate the case fur rrfativism,

I CRtTICAL READING QUEST10NS C

1. What is a folkway? Find examples of folkways in Sumner’s accounts. 2, Why dues Sumner say that folkways are true in an essay that suppons

moral relativism?

3. Do folkways bring well-being to goad people and harm to bad people in a particular society?

4. Are folkways logical? Are they rational?

5. In Sumner’s view, why are people moral?

6. How do people learn folkways?

1. Definition and Mode of Origin of the Folkways

If we put together all that we have learned from anthropology and ethnography about primitive men and pimitive society, we perceive that the first task of life is to live. Men begin with acts, not with thoughts. Every moment brings necessities

Sekaions from Folkways (Bosron: Ginn 81 Cn., 1907).

2 CHAPTER ONE Why Be a Moral Pcrron?

The readings in Chapter I address these questions from two different perspec- tives: explaining moral conduct or justifying the reasons for pursuing a moral life. Although they all agree that morality is a fundamental concern for humans, they disagree on related issues such as human nature, the purpose of being moral, and the universality of moral truths or values. More directly, they address whether we are moral because of cultural conditioning, genetic predisposition, religious up- bringing, or simply out of the desire to be happy.

Harvard professor of psychiatry Robert Coles introduces a compelling dilemma raised by one of his undergraduate students. How is it, she asks him, that an “A” student in an ethics course can, as she ruefully discovers, be morally inept outside the course? Furthermore, can this student’s behavior bc justified, or is it only ex- plainable by looking to external events?

William Surnner, a social scientist from Yale in the early 190Qs, contends rhat morality is largely a matter af cultural traditions and institutions. His Iucid de- scriptions of various rituals and customs are a classic statement of ethical relativ- ism-the idea that moral beliefs are dot universal but are valid only within the culture that espouses them,

Philosopher Richard Garrett illuminates the debate sparked by ethical relativ- ism in a lively dialogue involving the characters Max, Homer, Dilemma, and Sid- dhartha. He concludes with a challengeto the ethical relativist.

A different take on the “why be moral” issue comes from the field of sociobiol- ogy. One of its leading proponents, zoology professor E. 0. Wilson, believes that most behavior can be explained in terms of genetic makeup rather than ethical justifications. Being altruistic, in his view, is not a matter of high-mindedness but a selfish strategy for improving the species.

J. L. Mackie, a British philosopher, studies the case for sociobiology and finds n problem that can be addressed only by going beyond genetic accounts of moral behavior.

For many people thoughout the ages, religion has been the anchor to any sub- stantive morality. Selections from the Old and New Testaments reflect an attitude that a moral person is guided by following the authority of God and sacred writ- ings. A different perspective from Taoist thinker Chuang Tzu evokes a sense of freedom and humor to articulate the human concern for the good.

According to journalist and recent third-party presidential candidate Harry Browne, much of what passes for morality actually does more harm than good. He echoes a popular betief that any worthwhile morality has as its primary focus the happiness of the individual, Constraints such as guilt, sin, the golden rule, or social responsibility rhreaten a person” chances to enjoy life.

Nel Noddings, a philosopher of education, proposes a contrasting foundation for ethics. She suggests chat it is not the individual self but the self-in-relation rhat initiates our ordinary experiences and our moral reflections.

ROBERT COLkS

Case Sttidy: The Disparity between Intellect and Character

-P +,4′!!’~

Robrrt Colts (b , i 929) is a proJessor oJ Psychiutry and medical humanities at Harvard

U~iversity and is wefl h o w n f o r his study oJ children. Here Coles relates an episode in

which one of bis u~derjrdduate students posa a dilemma involving many ashects oJ

mordf educdtion. T h e student wants to HOW how it is possible that somwnc canget an

exctllmtgmde in an ethics course yet, outsidc the cioss, engage in moraIfy suspicious

condact. For Coles thEs raises a question all moral thinken need 10 address. That is, wbat i s the relation bdtuem intdligmce and moral characten

CRlTlCAL READING QUESTIONS

1. What evidence does the student offer to support the view that intelli- gent people are not always moral?

2. How can moral education lead to sterile discussion or cynicism? 3. Does Coles conclude that an ethics professor ought tr, grade a student

in part based an the student’s moral conduct or character?