A HOUII 0,. THEORY
H
it so because it is "metaphysical" and opinionated and obscures
the scientific business of altering our society for the better. The
latter think it so because it interferes with the deep operation of
traditions which should not be tampered with by critical reflection.
Bentham and Hume are still with us; but we are losing touch with
Locke and Mill.
The discrediting of theory has, then, taken place as a result
of a combination of different tendencies: Tory scepticism, Bentha–
mite scepticism, a Kantian protestant fear of "superstitions," and
more recently a dislike of Marxism, ,all apparently supported by
the anti-metaphysical destructive techniques of modern philosophy.
It is moreover felt that theorizing is anti-liberal (an idea which it
is easy to extract from Kant) and that liberal-minded persons should
surround their choices with a minimum of theory, relying rather
on open above board references to facts or to principles which are
simple and comprehensible to all. Here it is important, in accord–
ance indeed with the clear-headed methods of analytical philosophy,
in order to see what one is doing, to separate neutral airguments
from evaluations. The point, briefly made, is that the "elimination
of metaphysics," though it shows that moral beliefs were often sup–
ported by erroneous arguments, does not
ipso facto
"discredit" the
area of moral belief, properly understood as an are3i of conceptual
moral exploration. All that the anti-metaphysical arguments make
clear (and one would not wish to deny this) is that moral theorizing
is not the discovery of bogus "facts," but is an activity whose purpose
and justification are moral. Hegel understood and displayed this,
though he also sinned by picturing moral exploration dogmatically
within a rigid hierarchy of ideas. There is no philosophical (or
scientific) reason why there should not be an area of theory, re–
flection, meditation, contemplation,
between
ourselves and the
simple empirical levels of action, so long as certain arguments are
eschewed, and so long as it is clearly recognized that the purpose
of the theorizing is moral clarification and understanding; and moral,
politicai, and religious theories have, after all, often served
this
Whereas Left-wing (non-Communist) utterances must
be
"scientific" or else
offered as fragmentary personal notions. The greater moral solemnity of the
Right (and of the extreme Left) makes them, I suspect, in certain way. pro–
founder critic. of our IOciety at prelent.
