Ideality vs Reality

(From my Notebook)

I recently listened to a podcast on Plato's Cave by Simon Blackburn which raised several key issues (not necessarily intended by the speaker) in my mind again regarding ideals and reality.

In the Republic, Plato writes of the Philosopher-King, one who by virtue of his enlightened state of thought and knowledge deserves to be the undisputed ruler of the City State. Yet Plato, through the revived mouth of  Socrates, says that it in fact does not matter if such a person is real or not. It does not matter if he had existed, is existing or will exist in the future at all. It is, as one might put it, a completely utopian vision. Indeed, to become Philosopher-King one needs to attain all human knowledge which is attainable; Even in the 21st Century we aren't exactly quite sure of where those limits lie.

This separation of ideals and reality is especially important in my opinion. Too often we are faced with too many false dichotomies; when idealized theories (such as Immanuel Kant's deontological world - the kingdom of ends) come face to face with naturalistic theories like Hume's emotivism/intersubjectivism. These theories are then forced to pit against one another when it should be obvious that they belong to different realms to begin with. Ideal theories work themselves out in a different stage, one which arguably does not relate to our world. /Naturalistic/psychological theories on the other hand describe (at least, it attempts to describe) the world as it is, how human morality works in fact.What does this mean?

In my opinion, there will never be an end to moral debates purely because there will always be people believing in ideality as compared to reality. The debate between utilitarian/kantian ethics and emotivist/psychological systems of morality will never end as long as people continue to mistake what is with what ought to be.

To that end, what does normative ethics have to offer? Since it is contingent on a reality so bizarre from ours there seem to be no point in talking about it. Yet, if we simply abandon ideal normativity then the whole enterprise of ethics will begin to seem moot. Indeed, normative ethics seem to be all that is in philosophy now. But that is not the case. Because ideals provide a rational space for us to project what our lives could be if we acted in that way (as opposed to continuing the act how we act). Science is about induction, hence all it really does is show how things has always been. Yet, this does not mean that we should always be this way (the naturalistic fallacy). We can change and improve; This is the role of ethics in my view.

But first we must clear up the fog that surround ethical debates. Using ideal theories to debate with psychological theories about what is will always show psychological theories to be the triumphant one, simply because psychological theories show how things always have been. It is a past-projecting theory. But that should not be the role of modern ethics. While knowing what is helps us to project ideals, our role ultimately should separate itself from psychology.