A Reader’s Review of The Man

G’day Ric,

I am really enjoying reading ‘The Man’. You are obviously a man of many talents.

I thought I would just make a few philosophical remarks about your analysis of chapter 1. Towards the end of the analysis you pose the following question in regards to the moral assessment of the narrators act of paying for the aboriginal woman’s medicine, “So does that count [ is his action morally praiseworthy] or do you only get kudos when you perform an act of kindness?”.

The Two Schools of Moral Philosophy

Before giving my own answer to that question i would like to give a little philosophical background for any readers not familiar with some of the technical terms used within moral philosophy. There are, broadly speaking, two main schools of thought within moral philosophy.

Utilitarianism which originates from the English philosophers Jeremy Bentham and James Mill. Utilitarianism is an ‘externalist’ moral theory which locates the moral worth of an action in its consequences. De-ontological theories developed by the German philosopher Kant are ‘internalist’ and focus on the Subjective intentions of an agent.

When is an Act of Kindness Not an Act of Kindness?

With that out the way let us return to the ‘Man’. An internalist would say his action [paying for the medicine] was praiseworthy if he acted from some genuine empathy or sympathy (although the latter can be seen as patronising) towards the aboriginal woman.

Kant on Moral Kindness

Kant would say that for praise to be attributed to the action the Man’s internal reasons should be aimed at the welfare of the woman and not for any personal aggrandisement. (i.e. to be seen as a good man by others in which it is his own and not the woman’s welfare that is the ultimate target of the action).

Kant even goes so far as to say that to be morally praiseworthy the action should be contrary to the agents well being. for instance if I give some money to a beggar because of a genuine heartfelt concern for his welfare and happen to receive a tax deduction on the ‘donation’, then it is not a truly moral action. This seems to me to be a step too far.

Internalism Vs Externalism

Why can’t it be that a good man is rewarded for his goodness? If he acts without concern for possible rewards then he still meets the internalist criterion of moral action.

Of course at this stage in the story we can not be sure of the man’s true motives for acting as he does. so from an internalist perspective the jury is still out.

Now to externalism. An externalist would say that the moral worth of the Man’s action is determined by its consequences. But this is ambiguous. Of course, the woman’s daughter needs the medicine and so, on one level the action is good irrespective of the Man’s actual intentions because it results in a greater balance on the whole, of pleasure over pain in the world.

But as with all forms of moral accountancy the credits and debits are never simple.

For example, why is it that the cancer drugs are not free from the national health service. Maybe they are but the women does not know it. Maybe, if she did not get help from the Man and the chemist that she would be forced to look into the matter and receive free medication.

If that was to happen then it would be a better world than the one in which she gets handouts because she would not have to rely on strangers for sympathy and the strangers would be left with more money.

So on balance the utilities are maximised by not giving her money. My view is that like all moral questions there is an eliminable complexity and that true evaluations are hard to come by and require careful reflection on and understanding of all relevant conditions relating to the action. That is why I dislike any simplistic fundamentalism with the one answer fits all attitude.

So in regards to the ‘Man’ and the moral evaluation of his action. I think the jury is still out due to a lack of evidence.

Anthony Bell

Editor’s Note:

Thanks Anthony, you have raised some interesting points.

I wonder if the world would be a better place if no one ever had to think about other people because the state took care of all our needs. Might we not become very selfish and self centered?

I think being able to put oneself in the position of another and being capable of being moved by that experience is a very important trait in a human being and a person not capable of doing that (and there are many people in that position) experiences a sense of lacking or loneliness or a “hole” in their life.

Thanks for bringing this up for discussion.

Ric