What do you think?
Rate this book
Through the Moral Maze: Searching for Absolute Values in a Pluralistic World
A variety of moral and spiritual matters in today's world are addressed in this book. These include: the erosion of shared beliefs about right and wrong; the rift between public and private morality; the uncertain fate of religion; and answers to the question, "Why be moral?".
- GenresPhilosophy
252 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1994
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
November 7, 2018
Kane searches for absolute, universal moral truths to guide behavior.
He first discusses the problems with subjectivist ethics, where the good is identified with self-interest, and with cultural relativism where the good varies from group to group. Kane also acknowledges the problem with absolutist ethics where different assertions of Good (ethical truths) conflict with each other as seen, for example, with various religious truths.
Kane then uses Dostoyevsky’s observation — if God is dead, anything is permitted — to illustrate a problem for all ethical values that do not have an absolute-universal standing. With that perspective, he argues, we are left with nothing but ego-based moral actions that can even involve, without consequence, the killing of others. This is the problem we face now, Kane says. “Among the consequences of the modern Tower of Babel,” he writes, “is a pervasive temptation to embrace relativism, the view that there are no objective or ‘absolute’ values that hold for all persons and all times.”
The formula that works for Kane, in contrast, is “Platonic-Socratic” in nature: Kane believes there is a moral law that is every bit as absolute and universal as natural law – it’s part of the cosmic firmament. But, Kane states we cannot be certain that we know what these universal truths are. Such knowledge is to be uncovered through Socratic dialogue. Until one can see such truths to guide all ethical choices, openness and humility is the right way to approach the moral law, treating others as Kantian Ends as long as their actions fall within the moral sphere (i.e., not Hitler, Stalin).*
Kane operates within a philosophical paradigm that frames ethical theory in the wrong way. In that paradigm, the presumption is that the mind controls the body (Plato’s charioteer) because the body is driven by animalistic passion and ego-based self-interest. An absolute, universal moral law overrides such subjectivity. Hence, the mind’s role as the vehicle to access the moral law. The problem is that Kane presumes that the mind is the motivation organ so that, when one knows what is right, one will follow it. That too is integral to the Platonic tradition – to know the Good is to do the Good and that sort of thing.
Kane advises us to follow Kant’s categorical imperative and to treat others as an end, to be open to other viewpoints, etc., but the question is why? If one doubts the validity of a universal law, why not revert to the ego and use people as a means to one’s own end? That’s an equally valuable perspective. Or, even if there is such a law, why should one care enough to follow it? Inevitably, the question comes down to the body’s interest as the ultimate motive force. If it is in one’s self-interest to respect others as an end, then it makes sense. Kant’s categorical imperative becomes hypothetical, or some form of the golden rule becomes paramount: It’s in our self-interest to respect the interests of others. If we treat others as a means only, as Hobbes points out, disorder that harms self-interest will be the result. Seen this way, relationships are not plagued with moral purity. Rather, they are essentially utilitarian.
Kane presumes that a biological self cannot transcend self-interest. That view too is wrong. We – some – are naturally nurturing and other-regarding. We support others because we identify with them – they are part of ourselves. Darwin and others have discussed our social selves extensively – tribalism in a good sense – where we are designed by evolution to be good group members. We are moral in a way, without the intellectual “ought” apparatus that Kant and others insist upon. From an evolutionary perspective, this individual is social and other-regarding because it is in its interest to be social and other-regarding. Together, the self survives. Alone, the self dies.
This leaves the remaining issue about those whose primary motivation is self at the expense of others and there are plenty of these. Through deceit in various forms, these individuals seek to reap the advantages of group life without negative consequences for themselves or employ outright power to get what they want. These are the Hitlers, Stalins, and their lesser counterparts that we see all around us. Their actions lie outside of Kane’s moral sphere. They have no inclination to follow Kant’s categorical imperative or any natural moral law. These are but obstacles for them to overcome. They are incapable of internal self-restraint, making external constraint (the application of counter-power) the only option.
Universal moral law is buried in evolutionary biology, though this Kane does not see. We want to be free beings, and the only way for that to occur is if we respect the freedom of others. There is a pure line — a Platonic form in a way — that divides the space of one from the space of the other. It is the line of fairness and a line of equality where the freedom of each is balanced. When that line is violated, inequality results. Power is wrong when it is used to cross that line. Power is right when it is used to resist and restore the balance. All of these moral and political theory concepts are implicit in our biological being.
*Kane says that this enlightened approach is first seen in Jaspers’ Axial Age, but he fails to mention that Jaspers was really referencing something quite different. Jaspers looked at the simultaneous appearance of enlightenment thinking in religious terms – as the Divine making its appearance on Earth, and giving human beings the vision of an ethical realm and the means (via enlightened thought) to access that realm. Seen in this light, the Socratic dialogs can be seen as Plato’s way to reveal an eternal, Absolute, moral world, though it’s possible that this Platonic notion may have come from cross-fertilizing trade routes and not from the simultaneous appearance of the Divine.
He first discusses the problems with subjectivist ethics, where the good is identified with self-interest, and with cultural relativism where the good varies from group to group. Kane also acknowledges the problem with absolutist ethics where different assertions of Good (ethical truths) conflict with each other as seen, for example, with various religious truths.
Kane then uses Dostoyevsky’s observation — if God is dead, anything is permitted — to illustrate a problem for all ethical values that do not have an absolute-universal standing. With that perspective, he argues, we are left with nothing but ego-based moral actions that can even involve, without consequence, the killing of others. This is the problem we face now, Kane says. “Among the consequences of the modern Tower of Babel,” he writes, “is a pervasive temptation to embrace relativism, the view that there are no objective or ‘absolute’ values that hold for all persons and all times.”
The formula that works for Kane, in contrast, is “Platonic-Socratic” in nature: Kane believes there is a moral law that is every bit as absolute and universal as natural law – it’s part of the cosmic firmament. But, Kane states we cannot be certain that we know what these universal truths are. Such knowledge is to be uncovered through Socratic dialogue. Until one can see such truths to guide all ethical choices, openness and humility is the right way to approach the moral law, treating others as Kantian Ends as long as their actions fall within the moral sphere (i.e., not Hitler, Stalin).*
Kane operates within a philosophical paradigm that frames ethical theory in the wrong way. In that paradigm, the presumption is that the mind controls the body (Plato’s charioteer) because the body is driven by animalistic passion and ego-based self-interest. An absolute, universal moral law overrides such subjectivity. Hence, the mind’s role as the vehicle to access the moral law. The problem is that Kane presumes that the mind is the motivation organ so that, when one knows what is right, one will follow it. That too is integral to the Platonic tradition – to know the Good is to do the Good and that sort of thing.
Kane advises us to follow Kant’s categorical imperative and to treat others as an end, to be open to other viewpoints, etc., but the question is why? If one doubts the validity of a universal law, why not revert to the ego and use people as a means to one’s own end? That’s an equally valuable perspective. Or, even if there is such a law, why should one care enough to follow it? Inevitably, the question comes down to the body’s interest as the ultimate motive force. If it is in one’s self-interest to respect others as an end, then it makes sense. Kant’s categorical imperative becomes hypothetical, or some form of the golden rule becomes paramount: It’s in our self-interest to respect the interests of others. If we treat others as a means only, as Hobbes points out, disorder that harms self-interest will be the result. Seen this way, relationships are not plagued with moral purity. Rather, they are essentially utilitarian.
Kane presumes that a biological self cannot transcend self-interest. That view too is wrong. We – some – are naturally nurturing and other-regarding. We support others because we identify with them – they are part of ourselves. Darwin and others have discussed our social selves extensively – tribalism in a good sense – where we are designed by evolution to be good group members. We are moral in a way, without the intellectual “ought” apparatus that Kant and others insist upon. From an evolutionary perspective, this individual is social and other-regarding because it is in its interest to be social and other-regarding. Together, the self survives. Alone, the self dies.
This leaves the remaining issue about those whose primary motivation is self at the expense of others and there are plenty of these. Through deceit in various forms, these individuals seek to reap the advantages of group life without negative consequences for themselves or employ outright power to get what they want. These are the Hitlers, Stalins, and their lesser counterparts that we see all around us. Their actions lie outside of Kane’s moral sphere. They have no inclination to follow Kant’s categorical imperative or any natural moral law. These are but obstacles for them to overcome. They are incapable of internal self-restraint, making external constraint (the application of counter-power) the only option.
Universal moral law is buried in evolutionary biology, though this Kane does not see. We want to be free beings, and the only way for that to occur is if we respect the freedom of others. There is a pure line — a Platonic form in a way — that divides the space of one from the space of the other. It is the line of fairness and a line of equality where the freedom of each is balanced. When that line is violated, inequality results. Power is wrong when it is used to cross that line. Power is right when it is used to resist and restore the balance. All of these moral and political theory concepts are implicit in our biological being.
*Kane says that this enlightened approach is first seen in Jaspers’ Axial Age, but he fails to mention that Jaspers was really referencing something quite different. Jaspers looked at the simultaneous appearance of enlightenment thinking in religious terms – as the Divine making its appearance on Earth, and giving human beings the vision of an ethical realm and the means (via enlightened thought) to access that realm. Seen in this light, the Socratic dialogs can be seen as Plato’s way to reveal an eternal, Absolute, moral world, though it’s possible that this Platonic notion may have come from cross-fertilizing trade routes and not from the simultaneous appearance of the Divine.
August 6, 2007
Kane embraces the plurality of belief systems while still arguing against moral relativism. I took Kane's class as un undergrad, I should re-read the book and see what I think now.
October 19, 2021
Is there such a thing as objective worth, a value that can be said to be true from all points of view, and thus govern a universal sense of morality? The author thinks so and champions scholarship and aspiration to find such. While scientists promote objective worth they also continue research based on findings which they consider to be answers. And the humanities try to use aspiration in the search for truth and objectivity, mostly through the art which tells of human successes and failings. How do we understand a universal morality from all this? Aspiration helps but does not bring certainty. I guess we must celebrate the journey, because the destination will always be out there.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews