Trying Out One’s New Sword Argument Summary | Chaminade University of Honolulu

University:
Chaminade University of Honolulu
Course:
PH-105 | Ethics
Academic year:

2021
Views:

339

Pages:

2
Author:

Leilani Contreras

"Trying Out One’s New Sword” Argument Summary In her paper, “Trying Out One’s New Sword” Mary Midgley (1981) argues that moral isolationism is incorrect and not rational. Initially, Midgely says that moral isolationism in its essence is a judgement that is contradictory to respecting someone. Based on the principles of moral isolationism, we are only allowed to make positive, respectful claims about foreign cultures. However, Midgley responds that it is impossible to only make respectful and positive judgements because negative and positive judgements go hand in hand (Midgely 160). Therefore because both negative and positive judgements are inevitable, Midgely rationalizes that for moral isolationism to expect only positive claims about foreign cultures, is false and impossible to ensure. Secondly, Midgley explains that contrary to the idea of moral isolationism, outsiders can judge foreign cultures. Moral isolationism at its core says that outsiders cannot judge foreign cultures to any degree. However, because we are not members of any other culture but our own, we only have the perspective of our own culture (Midgley 161). Thus, to some degree, outsiders of a foreign culture can judge based on their own knowledge of their culture. Therefore, Midgley says that moral isolationism is incorrect. Thirdly, Midgley says that moral isolationism does not support moral reasoning, the idea of deciphering whether something is morally right or wrong. Midgley rationalizes that we cannot judge others’ cultures without judging our own, therefore moral reasoning is impossible without judging our own culture. (Midgley 162). Moral isolationism, according to its definition, makes moral reasoning impossible. Midgley argues that moral reasoning is necessary and possible. Therefore, Midgley argues that moral isolationism is irrational. Lastly, Midgley mentions that moral isolationism says cultures are isolated from one another. Yet, Midgley would argue that cultures are not isolated but rather intermixed with varied cultures. For example, Midgley notes, “It is no sealed box, but a fertile jungle of different influences--Greek, Jewish, Roman, Norse, Celtic, and so forth” (Midgley 164). So, moral isolationism’s assertion that cultures are isolated from each other is incorrect, because cultures are created by influences of so many other cultures, thus thoroughly mixed and not isolated. Therefore, Midgley argues that moral isolationism is false.