Ebook: Moralities: A Diachronic Evolutionary Approach

This essay is the product of years of distaste for, and dissatisfaction with, the efforts of moral philosophers. It can be tiresome to attend to details, to spell out the obvious, but moral philosophy is such an abysmally difficult subject that faster than a creeping slug is breakneck reckless speed. One simply must content oneself with a slow slimy trail painfully drawn and cautiously constrained. Generally speaking, philosophy, and, in particular, moral philosophy, is too hard fot philosophers. Even though publishing is spitting in the ocean, and even though my sour sweet spittle will not alter the ocean's salinity, I am somehow inclined to publish this essay. Acknowledgments: I began this essay in 1956. During the years, I have discussed many of the topics in this volume with a great many philosophers. I am indebted to all of them, especially those with whom I disagreed and those who disagreed with me. One learns nothing from agreement, whereas disagreement provokes one to look more closely and more carefully at what is at issue: if a philosopher is to profit from discussion, someone must be disagreeable.

---

This is the final work of the distinguished philosopher Paul Ziff, whose earlier books include Understanding Understanding, Philosophical Turnings, and Semantic Analysis. It is carefully crafted and written in numbered paragraphs rather than chapters, in style of the later Wittgenstein. The work concerns morality, rationality, symbolism and imagery.
In the words of the author: "The primary thesis of this essay is that, although there are many different and conflicting moralities, both here in America and throughout the world, some of them can be criticized and rejected on rational grounds. There are other moralities that one can personally reject, but they cannot be criticized on rational grounds. The same is true of the various values and priorities that different people have. Some are open to criticism on rational grounds; others are not open to such criticism." His conclusion is: "Symbolism and imagery constitute the real and only basis of the moralities that I have endeavored to characterize here, my own morality and that of others. But the most fundamental image of all of my morality is that which is created by an appreciation of life, all life."