Book: Chapter 1: Ethical Theories (Mary Midgley – Trying Out One’s New Sword), Contemporary Moral
Problems by James E. White
Quote: “Cross-roads cut”
Learning Expectation(s)
The reader is expected to learn:
• Who is Mary Midgley
• What is Moral Isolationism
• Does it exist or even proven
Mary Midgley taught philosophy at the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne in England for twenty
years and is now retired. She has been made famous because of the books she wrote like “Animals and
Why They Matter”, “Science and Poetry”, and many more. She attacks on the concept of moral
isolationism. It is the view of anthropologists and others that cannot criticize cultures that humans don’t
understand. For example the older Japanese culture that had the practice of trying out a new samurai
sword on a chance wayfarer. Midgley argues that moral isolationism is essentially a doctrine of
immoralism because it forbids any moral reasonings. Furthermore, it falsely assumes that cultures are
separate and unmixed, whereas most cultures are in face formed out of many influences. I am agreeing
on what Mary points. As for my example the Filipino culture is formed out of many influences, like from
the Americans, the Japanese and the Spaniards. So if I am going to be asked, I will also attack moral
isolationism because of course morals shouldn’t be isolated. It should continue to be free otherwise it
could turn into something “not good”.
Midgley’s definition of moral isolationism is the following, in consists in simply denying that we
can ever understand any culture except our own well enough to make judgments about it. One of the
reasons that she argues that this is an untenable position is that if we cannot sufficiently understand
another culture to criticize them, we would not be able to praise them either. If tomorrow, China turned
from a Communist country to a Democratic one, we would want to praise them for making the right
choice. However, if one holds that we cannot criticize cultures that hold to different values because we
don’t have sufficient understanding of them, it would then be inconsistent to be able to praise other
cultures as well. Midgley’s example of an aspect of a different society that we would praise is some of the
virtues held by Samurais. Her point is however the same. She takes the idea that we cannot praise other
cultures for a set of values as absurd. Hence, moral isolationism results in an absurd consequence that
should cause it to be rejected. Her second point against moral isolationism is that if we are not able to
make moral judgments about other societies, we are not able to make them about our own either. She
explains how moral judgment is void if moral isolationism is true. Our opinions of other societies being
good or bad are necessary in order to state an opinion concerning our own. These opposing ideas form a
range of comparison which allows us to say whether we should or should not be like them. One example
is how the Samurais used to test their battle swords on random commoners in order to insure that the
sword was correctly sharpened. If we didn’t come to the conclusion that this practice was unjust, then
how could we come to the conclusion that we should perform this practice in our society? The only way to
learn from other society’s mistakes or successes is to be able to form moral judgments about them. In this
sense, Midgley says how moral judgment is not something we can discard. It is necessary if we are to
learn from other’s mistakes. If moral isolationism was true, we would not be able to learn from other
culture’s mistakes or successes. Since we can learn from other country’s mistakes, moral isolationism is
false. The first of Midgley’s assumptions is that moral judgment is necessary. When we judge something
as good, we are saying that there is reason to pursue it. It is the same way with judging something as
bad; we are stating that there is reason to avoid it. Her second assumption is needed for her first point
against moral isolationism to hold. That being that we can understand a culture enough to praise them.
For her second point against moral isolationism to hold, she must assume that moral reasoning in general
is justified. She assumes that it is plausible to say that certain acts are right or wrong. Her last assumption
can be illuminated by asking the question, “What does it mean to be ‘of’ a certain society? And
conversely, what does it mean for one to be an outsider?”
Integrative Questions:
1. What is the concept of this chapter?
2. What is relation of Samurais to the title of the chapter?
3. What is the moral isolationism?
4. What is the central theme of the author?
5. Who is Mary Midgley?
Lessons Learned:
I’ve learned that this concept is not widely accepted, instead it is still questioned if it is valid or
really existing. But as for my own opinion, I am agreeing with her thoughts. I do believe that before
someone is considered as “in” a society, he/she must first have to stay there for years.
Review Questions
1. What is “moral isolationism”?
Moral isolationism is the view that people should not morally criticize cultures that they do not understand.
2. Explain the Japanese custom of tsujigiri. What questions does Midgley ask about this custom?
Tsujigiri or crosscut is practiced by the Japanese samurais. They test new swords on wayfarers. It is
important to the samurais that their sword must be able to slice through someone in a single swing,
passing from the shoulder to the opposite side. If the sword did not work properly, the samurai would lose
his Honor, the respect of his emperor and disgrace his ancestors.
Midgley asks how people from western cultures morally criticize the Japanese when they also have
savage practices of their own like human experimentation.
3. What is wrong with moral isolationism, according to Midgley?
Moral isolationism stops us in criticizing others customs and this includes the ones that are really
destructive in nature.
4. What does Midgley think is the basis for criticizing other cultures?
The basis for criticizing other culture is to prove it that it destroys the general moral teachings.
Discussion Questions
1. Midgley says that Nietzsche is an immoralist. Is that an accurate and fair assessment of Nietzsche?
Why or why not?
No because he encourages moral reasoning.
2. Do you agree with Midgley’s claim that the idea of separate and unmixed cultures is unreal? Explain
your answer.
Yes because racial discrimination is present in all cultures and sectors of society.