Scheidell 1 Stephen Scheidell Ethical Theory 3 March 2011 Paper 1a: The Linguistic Ethic Abstract: To teach a language

is to teach an ethicnamely, one o participation! Lud"ig #ittgenstein descri$es language as a participation in a orm o li e! Moreo%er, &!P! 'rice descri$es a (ooperati%e Principle to guide the e icient and rational e)change o in ormation "hen an utterance is made! Ta*ing these o$ser%ations as cues, the orthcoming pro+ect "ill argue or the presence o an ethic $uilt into the structure o natural human languages! Method: ,sing Lud"ig #ittgenstein-s Philosophical Investigations and &! P! 'rice-s Studies in the Way of Words, part 1 o the paper "ill identi y a necessary ethical component in the per ormance o language! &a%ing done so, part 2 "ill sho" the conclusions o part 1 to $e compati$le "ith the three recogni.ed modes o ethical thought, rather than a ourth alternati%e! This "ill $e accomplished $y ela$orating the ethic o language in terms o : 1! /eontological respect or personhood, 2! 0ecessary conditions or conse1uentialist discussions and corporate e%aluations, and 3! Meta2%irtues

Paper 1$: 3nnotated 4i$liography

Scheidell 2 Part 1: Primary Sources: #ittgenstein, Lud"ig! Philosophical Investigations. 2nd 5e%ised Ed! '!E!M! 3nscom$e! 6) ord, ,7: 4lac*"ell Pu$lishers, 189:! #ittgenstein $rea*s "ith his earlier thought on language, a$andoning the search or a uni ying logic o language! ;n its place, he posits the concept o a language2game! 3ccording to this conception, the meaning o an utterance is its use in a orm o li e! This conception o language as a orm o li e "ill ser%e as a starting point or in%estigation into the nature o linguistic participation! This speci ic orm o participation "ill $e treated as a <%ision o the good- inherent in language-s %ery structure! ; this is correct, then the argument can $e made that human persons participate in an ethical structure $y participating in language! 'rice, Paul! Studies in the Way of Words. (am$ridge, Massachusetts: &ar%ard ,ni%ersity Press, 1881! 'rice departed rom the ordinary language school $y arguing that more goes into the use o an utterance than its meaning! /e%eloping the idea o implicature, he contends that the (ooperati%e Principle =and certain <ma)ims o con%ersation-> actor into "hat in erences "e normally ma*e! &e $elie%ed that the "ord2$y2"ord meaning o the utterance, the circumstances under "hich the utterance "as made, and tacit o$ser%ation o the ma)ims collecti%ely actored into ho" an utterance is employed $y a normal language user! This pro+ect "ill attempt to situate the (ooperati%e Principle "ithin linguistic participation! ; success ul, one could argue that $eing linguistically adept in%ol%es $eing attuned to the ethos o natural human languagenamely participation! ;n this sense, to teach a language is to teach an ethic!

Secondary Sources:

Scheidell 3 4a*er, 'ordon and &ac*er, Peter! Wittgenstein: Understanding and Meaning: Volume of an Analytical !ommentary on the Philosophical Investigations. (hicago, ;llinois: ,ni%ersity o (hicago Press, 18:0! 4a*er, 'ordon and &ac*er, Peter! Wittgenstein: "ules# $rammar and %ecessity: Volume & of an Analytical !ommentary on the Philosophical Investigations. 6) ord, ,7: 4asil 4lac*"ell, 18:9! This te)t, along "ith its second %olume, "ill acilitate a close reading o the ;n%estigations! #or*ing out participation as a structurally necessary ethical category or language "ill turn on the use o these commentaries! Soames, Scott! Philosophical Analysis in the '(entieth !entury# Volume &: 'he Age of Meaning. Princeton ,ni%ersity Press: Princeton, 0e" ?ersey, 2009! 3s an historical o%er%ie" o analytical philosophy in the latter hal o the 20 th century, Soames- "or* "ill acilitate situating $oth #ittgenstein and 'rice "ithin the larger pro$lems in "hich they "ere engaged! Soames e ecti%ely sho"s the impact and import o these t"o thin*ers! Part 2: Mac;ntyre, 3lasdair! After Virtue: A Study in Moral 'heory. 3rd ed! 0otre /ame, ;ndiana: ,ni%ersity o 0otre /ame Press, 200@! The pro+ect "ill engage the three ma+or schools o ethical methodologies! 0e%ertheless, it "ill ocus on articulating the "ays in "hich linguistic participation and $eing $rought up into a linguistic community are trainings into certain %irtues! Mo%ing a"ay rom Mac;ntyre-s pro+ect, ho"e%er, this one "ill emphasi.e the linguistic participation as a $aseline, shared structural %irtuea meta2%irtue perhaps! 4aron, Marcia and Pettit, Phillip and Slote, Michael! 'hree Methods of )thics. 6) ord, ,7: #iley24lac*"ell, 188@!

Scheidell A

This te)t permits a representati%e rom the ma+or ethical methodologies to e)press and ad%ocate their respecti%e position! 4y engaging this de$ate, it "ill $e sho"n that the linguistic ethic is not to $e treated as a ourth, competing option! 5ather, it can in act $e argued that the linguistic ethic permits itsel to $e articulated, one might say interpreted, in terms o any o these methods! That is to say, that the linguistic ethic "ill $est ser%e as a $order, or possi$le correcti%e, to e)istent moral in1uiries! Prospects for a !ommon Morality. 'ene 6ut*a, ?ohn P! 5eeder! Princeton, 0e" ?ersey: Princeton ,ni%ersity Press, 1882! ,se o this anthology "ill ocus on post2modern challenges to theory speci ically the ne" claims o moral s*epticism! 0amely, these claims are that =a> uni%ersal or common norms do not e)ist! 5ather, each society constructs its o"n norms and that =$> i they did, "e cannot step out o our o"n culture to a neutral standpoint rom "hich to ma*e criti1ues! The linguistic ethic may a%oid these pro$lems $y =a> starting rom a shared human phenomenonlanguage, and =$> not re1uiring a <neutralstandpoint! 5ather, $y e)plicating the linguistic phenomenon, one starts rom one-s o"n cultural, historical, and social a$ric! 6ne ad%ances the research $y in%iting other natural human languages into the in1uiry in order to ha%e language2speci ic aspects distinguished rom essential structures! Le%inas, Emmanuel! 'otality and Infinity. Pitts$urgh, Pennsyl%ania: /u1uesne ,ni%ersity Press, 200:! 3lthough rarely utili.ed as a source or philosophy o language, Le%inas- analysis o language in this te)t o ers among the e" accounts "herein ethical concerns are an e)plicit ocus "hile descri$ing ho" language unctions in human li e! 'otality and Infinity "ill $e cited sparingly, $ut as a cue! Bor his description captures elements o language use that are illuminated $y neither #ittgenstein nor 'rice! ;t may in act $e argued that the thesis o the orthcoming pro+ect has lain dormant "ithin 'otality and Infinity! The central claim that Le%inas ma*es, regarding language, is that discourse is an

Scheidell 9 act o teaching and learning! #hile little "ill $e de%oted to e%aluating this claim itsel , the idea o language as a teaching "ill help $ring together #ittgenstein-s language as participation and 'rice-s (ooperati%e Principle! Le%inas- claim "ill allo" the pro+ect to descri$e the process $y "hich one is $rought into language games and into participation in general! ;t "ill ha%e to $e as*ed "hether language is al(ays an act o teaching and learning! E$els2/uggan, 7yla! C3gainst 4ene icence: 3 0ormati%e 3ccount o Lo%e!C )thics 118, no! 1 =200:>: 1A221@0! 7yla E$els2/uggan-s normati%e account o lo%e in terms o her Dshared2ends %ie"E comes remar*a$ly close to "hat the linguistic ethic "ill descri$e as participation! Thus, her description o lo%e as Dshared endsE "ill ser%e as a guideline or thin*ing through the place that the linguistic ethic o participation can play in ethical thought! Paper 2: The Linguistic Ethic Pre ace The orthcoming pro+ect "ill consist in t"o parts! ;n part 1, an e)amination o Lud"ig #ittgenstein-s Philosophical Investigations "ill isolate the ethical component in learning a language $y implication o his doctrine o the rules o a language2game! 6 speci ic interest "ill $e his theory that understanding a language is a*in to understanding ho" to use a tool! ;n that sense, understanding language is an a$ility! 0arro"ed more speci ically, the pro+ect "ill in1uire into the conditions o teaching and ac1uiring that a$ility! &a%ing done so, &!P! 'rice-s (ooperati%e Principle "ill $e studied to sho" that the mores learned in irst communication remain and regulate the e ecti%e e)changes "ithin discourse! The pro+ect-s thesis is that teaching the a$ilities o language is necessarily to also culti%ate the child-s a$ility to participate in society, "hich is an ethical concern start to inish! There ore, the structure o language and language ac1uisition indicates certain norms and patterns or interpersonal mores, "ithout "hich language could not unction! 5egarding the structures o language that interest this pro+ect, "e may

Scheidell F distinguish the per ormati%e structures o language rom its disclosi%e aspects! Bor no", the di erence may $e understood as ollo"s! (onsider the di erence $et"een "hat is said in discourse and the manner in "hich it is said! 6ne may say something in earnest, solemnly, sarcastically, or nonchalantly! ;n this "ay, the manner o the presentation is not e1ui%alent to the claims made! The di erence thereo "ill $e termed the per ormance and the disclosure respecti%ely! The interaction o these aspects and their relation to meaning is o speci ic interest in this study! 1 Part 2 "ill e)plicate and interpret the mores isolated in part one! Three points o clari ication are necessary to limit and ela$orate the $ounds and aims o the second part o present pro+ect! Birst, this study is not attempting an all2encompassing ethical theory! This may $e understood in t"o "ays$oth %alid! 6n the one hand, e)istent mores are neither e1ui%alent to the linguistic ethic nor interpretations thereo ! ;nterpretations o the linguistic ethic "ill sho" resonances and discords "ith each o the e)istent ethical theories currently employed! ;n short, the linguistic ethic does not su$sume e)istent mores!2 6n the other hand, the linguistic ethic is not $eing de%eloped here into a complete system! That is to say, it does not present itsel as a ne" alternati%e in competition "ith e)istent ethical theories! ;t alone "ill not su ice to ans"er e%ery ethical dilemma! 5ather, it may supplement or chec* e)istent ethical theories and mores! Secondly, as sho"n $y the pre%ious t"o points, the linguistic ethic is not a standalone ethical theory! 5ather, it is a descriptive analysis o implicit mores3 $uilt into the structure o language and communication in general! 3s such, it ser%es ethical thought in three "ays! Birst, it ser%es as an ans"er to the challenges o moral s*epticism! Secondly, it can chec* e)istent ethical theories and mores $y sho"ing inconsistencies $et"een implicit linguistic norms and e)plicit ethical theories and mores! Thirdly, it can supplement them $y o ering additional tools to ans"er 1uestions! Thirdly, as the linguistic ethic does not su ice as a ro$ust ethical theory, the ormulations o its interpretation may con lict "ith claims made $y e)istent mores andGor
1

Bor e)ample, imagine one says to you, DSenator so2and2so "ill ma*e a terri ic president!E The meaning o this utterance clearly changes "ith a change in per ormance! 2 The terminology demands a distinction to $e made $et"een e)istent mores and e)istent ethical theories! <E)istent mores- "ill denote any gi%en societal morality as it is li%ed! <E)istent ethical theories- "ill denote deontological ethics, conse1uentialism, %irtue ethics, and other approaches *ua ethical theories! 3 The distinction $et"een the per ormati%e aspects o language and its disclosi%e aspects "ill sho" the implicit and e)plicit mores respecti%ely! This point "ill $e e)panded "hen discussing 'rice!

Scheidell @ ethical systems! #hen apparent con licts arise, one must $e care ul in na%igating the disagreement! Bor three possi$ilities e)ist in the presence o such a con lict: 1! /iscard the e)istent more or ethical theoretical claim, 2! 5einterpret the ormulation as to a%oid the con lict, or 3! ,nderstand the con lict as an indication that one has assumed too much and misunderstood a contingent norm as essential! 3s the goal o this study is to identi y essential aspects o language and their ethical components, the ormulation cannot $e discarded "ithout irst sho"ing either that the ormulation needs re%ision or that the structure rom "hich it "as ormed is in act not essential to the e icacy o language! Thus, options 1 and 2 "ill usually $e the most reasona$le course o action! &o"e%er, option 3 permits one to sal%age the pro+ect i it is sho"n that e)istent mores or ethical theories re%eal one or more ormulations as inessential!