Despair and The Sense of “Ought”
Mar 12, 2019 14:39:45 GMT -6
Post by Todd on Mar 12, 2019 14:39:45 GMT -6
If the world were to end next week, and we knew in advance of its coming end, could we shrug our shoulders and accept it? There probably would be great sorrow and despair! But why? Despair generally is not the normal condition of even fallen man’s soul. Despair, the loss of hope and the dismal acceptance of whatever “fate” brings, is universally acknowledged to be abnormal. But what is the object of that hope which, when given up, yields despair? However it is stated, it is by definition, indeed by the very structure of the spirit of man himself, a tacit belief in goodness. Men have always believed, regardless of their present circumstances, that things would improve, or at least not get any worse. The anticipation of a worsening of conditions always inspires dread, “angst.”
But whence man’s “belief in goodness?”
First, let it be admitted that nothing is as good as it could be. Then, let it be admitted that all men have wished for better in some way at some time. “Ought” expresses the idea neither that we should desire that things be better, nor that things merely could be better, but that normally they would be better; that we have the right, indeed the duty, to expect better. We are curiously conscious, not of perfection, but of imperfection. “Ought” points to conditions beyond experience; it is the idealist’s word.
We have no experience that tells us what ought to be; experience tells us only what is. It is our very nature, the essence of mankind that recognizes the good, and hence, the “ought.” Indeed, it is this element of man that allows him to recognize God in His revelation, for without a rational, ethical nature, no such thing as an ethical revelation could be transmitted, or understood.
Mere preference, the subjective “beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” is the collection of subjective motions. But “ought” is universal, objective, a priori, and wholly inexplicable on empirical grounds.
Yet even if we were to argue that over the centuries, man has made his situation “better,” (which we deny) he has not gone one step closer to that perfection, the absence of which he is so conscious, and which he feels he “ought” to correct. For all of man’s innovations for good have required, or have resulted in the forfeiture of other things “good.” In fact, his overall psychological status and spiritual Well-being are qualitatively no better (and we would argue that it is in fact much worse) than the most primitive men alive today. Mankind will always seek “better” because he cannot arrive at the best. “Ought,” like a mirage, will always draw man onward.
- Todd
But whence man’s “belief in goodness?”
First, let it be admitted that nothing is as good as it could be. Then, let it be admitted that all men have wished for better in some way at some time. “Ought” expresses the idea neither that we should desire that things be better, nor that things merely could be better, but that normally they would be better; that we have the right, indeed the duty, to expect better. We are curiously conscious, not of perfection, but of imperfection. “Ought” points to conditions beyond experience; it is the idealist’s word.
We have no experience that tells us what ought to be; experience tells us only what is. It is our very nature, the essence of mankind that recognizes the good, and hence, the “ought.” Indeed, it is this element of man that allows him to recognize God in His revelation, for without a rational, ethical nature, no such thing as an ethical revelation could be transmitted, or understood.
Mere preference, the subjective “beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” is the collection of subjective motions. But “ought” is universal, objective, a priori, and wholly inexplicable on empirical grounds.
Yet even if we were to argue that over the centuries, man has made his situation “better,” (which we deny) he has not gone one step closer to that perfection, the absence of which he is so conscious, and which he feels he “ought” to correct. For all of man’s innovations for good have required, or have resulted in the forfeiture of other things “good.” In fact, his overall psychological status and spiritual Well-being are qualitatively no better (and we would argue that it is in fact much worse) than the most primitive men alive today. Mankind will always seek “better” because he cannot arrive at the best. “Ought,” like a mirage, will always draw man onward.
- Todd