Reference no: EM133240091

Assignment:

Question: Explain the author's critique of Tryne. What are your thoughts on the argument being made?

For if morality is about doing the right thing, it is far from obvious that we should think Tyre is more praiseworthy than Schuyler. Indeed, as has been suggested, in her guileless way Tryne is perhaps more likely to do the wrong thing than Schuyler. For example, when traveling to an impoverished country, you will frequently be asked by children for pencils, or sometimes money. Tryne would surely give. But Schuyler would probably think a little more, and conclude, along with most development agencies, that this kind of giving encourages dependence as well as feelings of inferiority and helplessness. It is far better to give directly to a school, and preserve the dignity of those you want to help.

There is a second reason to temper one's praise of Tryne. Since her actions are unthinking, isn't it a matter of luck that she tends to act well? Why should we praise someone for just happening to have a generally good set of disposition? What is worse, unless we reflect on our feelings, might not our instinct lead us astray? Think, for instance, about the many people in history who have shared Tryne's basic personality, but who have been brought up in racist cultures. Such people were often as unthinking in their racism as they were in their kindness.

Maybe we could go further. Schuyler deserves more moral credit precisely because she acts well in spite of her lack of instinctive empathy and compassion. Whereas Tryne's kindness requires no particular effort, Schuyler's is a triumph of human will over natural inclination.

However, reversing our instinctive judgment and seeing Schuyler as the more morally praiseworthy creates different problems. After all, doesn't it seem odd to say that the person whose goodness is more intimately enmeshed in their personality is less virtuous than the one who does good only because they reason that they should?

The trite solution to the dilemma is simply to say that goodness requires a marriage of head and heart, and that, while both Tryne and Schuyler manifest some facets of virtue, neither provides the model of the well-rounded, ethical individual. This is almost certainly true, but it avoids the real dilemma: is it how we feel or how we think that is more important in determining whether we are morally good human beings?