PURSRO-2v1

Schopenhauer’s Rejection of the Moral Ought

Introduction

• The prescriptive view of morality:

  • Associated with Kant, claiming morality provides laws of what ought to happen.

  • Suggests moral imperatives bind us categorically or absolutely.

• Schopenhauer's critique:

  • Presents a descriptive conception of ethics.

  • Argues against the prescriptive nature of moral oughts.

Main Arguments of Schopenhauer's Critique

Section 1: Kant’s Petitio Principii (Begging the Question)

• Kant assumes morality must have a prescriptive legislative form.

• Schopenhauer questions this assumption:

  • Ethics can also be descriptive and explanatory.

  • Focus on understanding moral phenomena exists,

  • Instead of prescribing actions.

• Schopenhauer's approach:

  • Investigates actions to discern genuine moral worth.

Section 2: Binding Oughts

• Schopenhauer’s principle: A binding ought requires a threat of punishment or promise of reward.

• Without these conditions, demands of an ought lack meaning.

  • Supports with quotes from:

    • John Locke: Laws must have enforcement to have significance.

    • Pufendorf and Austin emphasize punishment as essential to obligation.

Section 3: Loss of Intelligibility of Moral Ought

• Schopenhauer anticipates Anscombe’s claim:

  • The moral ought requires a divine law framework.

• Without this, the moral ought loses sense and coherence.

• Schopenhauer posits:

  • Morality cannot be independent of theological foundations.

Section 4: Contradictory Nature of Moral Law

• First contradiction: The moral law as a law of freedom is self-contradictory.

  • A free will cannot be simultaneously bound by moral laws.

• Second contradiction: The categorical imperative is implicitly conditional.

  • Arises from the necessity of threats or rewards to bind actions.

Section 5: The Role of Self-Interest in Moral Ought

• Schopenhauer's assertion:

  • Actions driven by self-interest cannot have moral worth.

• Contradiction arises:

  • A moral ought binds through self-interest yet claims to oppose it.

• The formulation of the argument:

  1. A moral ought is binding.

  2. It binds through threats of punishment.

  3. Compliance comes from self-interest.

  4. Actions rooted in self-interest lack moral worth.

  5. Thus, a binding ought devoid of moral worth, is not truly a moral ought.

Conclusion

• Schopenhauer raises serious doubts about Kant's prescriptivist view.

• The critique focuses on:

  • The absence of grounding for obligations without divine law.

  • The contradictions inherent in strict interpretations of moral law.

• Suggests a shift towards a descriptive-explanatory approach to ethics.