Tomorrow I have to hand in a short 1500 word paper on Charles Taylor’s work Malaise of Modernity. The book is actually a transcript of Taylor’s Massey Lecture which for those non-Canadians is pretty much the premier lecture to be given in Canada. It’s therefore an easy work to read, but one that is surprisingly difficult when you try to look at it in detail. I won’t use this space to go into a detailed look at what Taylor is saying in this lecture, I just did that in a paper, but I do want to look briefly at one argument he makes regarding choice and significance.
In the chapter titled Inescapable Horizons he says the following:
But in some forms this discourse slides toward an affirmation of choice itself. All options are equally worthy, because they are freely chosen, and it is choice that confers worth. The subjectivist principle underlying soft relativism is at work here. But this implicitly denies the existence of a pre-existing horizon of significance, whereby some things are worthwhile and others less so, and still others not at all, quite anterior to choice. But then the choice of sexual orientation loses any special significance. It is on a level with any other preferences, like that for taller or shorter sexual partners, or blonds or brunettes. No one would dream of making discriminating judgments about these preferences, but that’s because they are all without importance. They really do just depend on how you feel. Once sexual orientation comes to be assimilated to these, which is what happens when one makes choice the crucial justifying reason, the original goal, which was to assert the equal value of this orientation is subtly frustrated. Difference so asserted becomes insignificant…
I find the argument in this section fascinating. Now Taylor chose here to use homosexuality as his example, but you could substitute any ongoing argument where one side holds up choice as their justification (think abortion). If Taylor’s argument is right here, then choice cannot be used as a justification because it has no significance. Lets work briefly through what his argument is.
Those who believe in subjectivism will argue to Taylor that homosexuality (to continue to use Taylor’s example) is simply a choice of sexual orientation (this is NOT the argument that all homosexuals use, I think abortion would be a better example since many if not most homosexuals do not see it as a choice but we’ll follow Taylor here). One may choose to be straight, or choose to be gay. But if it is only a choice, asks Taylor, why is it significant?
There is nothing special about a choice, we make them all day long without a second thought as to their significance. Unless one simply wants their sexual orientation determined by a cost benefit analysis, or how you feel at the moment, there has to be something more then pure choice that matters in some decisions. There must be a significance attached to the decision. For Taylor (although in the above quote he doesn’t get into it) that significance has to be morality.
Arguments regarding homosexuality and abortion must be moral arguments, not simply arguments abut the right to choose. If those who support these actions simply argue them based on their right to choose them they have already lost the debate because it’s lost all significance. If it’s just a choice and has no significance, then it shouldn’t matter if one chooses not to.
However, do they talk as if it’s only a choice? Do you ever hear someone say: I choose to sleep in 5 minutes today, then I choose to have toast for breakfast, then I chose to have an abortion, before choosing to watch some TV before dinner. It’s crazy to think about someone talking that way (although I assume there are some that do).
The debates on homosexuality and abortion have to be moral debates because they are areas where both sides (whether they admit it or not is another question) put significance on it. Both sides know it’s more then about a choice, there is more at stake here and thats why there is argument. If a choice in these matters is at all worth making, it must be more then simply a choice, something must be at stake.
A little further on Taylor summarizes this when he says:
Which issues are significant, I do not determine. If I did, no issue would be significant. But then the very ideal of self-choosing as a moral ideal would be impossible.
I’m not sure I understand what Taylor is getting at. Let’s say I’m pro-choice. I think abortion has no moral significance, it’s just a choice that people make. Why can’t I justify my belief based on an appeal to the right to choose? Is freedom of choice (in all matters) not a vital component of liberty?
I’m not convinced that appealing to choice and denying the existence of moral significance makes the debate any less important. Maybe we’re just shifting the moral ground, though: in the abortion debate, one side is arguing based on the morality of abortion, and the other is arguing based on the morality of free choice as a necessary component of liberty. Is that what Taylor is getting at?
I doubt I really understood much of that, but I have thought about the concept of choice. What happens to us when we have too many choices? (Think buying a cup of coffee at a yuppie coffee shop or getting lunch at a full-service cafeteria or buying toilet paper.) We become overwhelmed, we become frustrated with trying to make sense of them all, we try to categorize the options. We waste our time spinning our wheels trying to deal with minutiae . Having too many choices, especially if they are all morally equal, does lead to insignificance and thus to malaise.
Jew, what I think he’s opposing here is someone who who denies morality and thinks everything is simply a choice without moral significance. If someone tries to justify their choice on the basis that they have “the right to choose” Taylor might say “Yes, you do. But why is it important?”
I think Taylor would agree that freedom of choice is a moral issue (in fact I’m sure of it) but when an issue such as homosexuality or abortion comes up he would say that freedom is all good, but why is it an issue worth fighting over? There are other issues that involve freedom of choice (forced recycling), but they are not treated like these because in these cases there is another component; obvious moral significance.
Thanks Bryan, that makes sense. I’m not sure I buy it completely–couldn’t you base the argument on pragmatism rather than morality? Abortion is worth fighting over because raising a child is time-consuming and expensive; forced recycling is not worth fighting over because it’s a minor irritation at worst. But I can agree that morality is a root component of every justification of significant issues.