Living the good life News from the Front

Our ingrained sense of `oughtness' is a powerful argument for the existence of God, says Quentin de la Bedoyere
Real Ethics: Rethinking the Foundations of Morality by John M Rist, Cambridge University Press f15.95
Of the many arguments put forward for the existence of God, I have always favoured the one which rests on our sense of morality: that is, our recognition that good ought to be done and evil ought to be avoided. This sense of "oughtness", despite the attacks of many philosophers and psychoanalysts. seems to me to prevail in the common mind. and to be inexplicable other than in metaphysical terms. Indeed, the long history of philosophical argument bears witness to the fact that even those who fight against it cannot escape it. And, in the end, their varied conclusions are judged by it.
John Rist, who is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy and Classics at the University of Toronto. argues that a "realist" approach, basing morals on the call by God to move towards conforming with his ultimate goodness. is the only sure foundation. The approaches to moral principle based in the purely natural order are destined to collapse into relativism and fragmentation (as they have to a great extent already), only checked by the remnants of Christian tradition and a general sense of benevolence.
Tolstoy's comment that "All happy families resemble one another. but each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way" is analogous to Rist's claim that goodness is ultimately simple, but that in our human nature we are divided by the tension between our wish to be good and our instinct to be bad. Fragmentation is built into us. Our aim is to integrate ourselves through our advance towards goodness, for which we need God's help.
His starting point is Socrates. as reported and developed by Plato. Neither Socrates nor Aristotle provide more than a nucleus for realist morality, but their essential contribution was that it must be founded in the individual's sense of absolute good, which cannot be sourced from within human nature. The unifying principle is the call to love, which includes the love of neighbour and thus the good of society.
Although Rist is a Catholic, this is not a book of apologetics. He is a philosopher, and he argues as such. His critique of moral philosophy — of Hobbes, Hume. Kant (particularly the neoKantians), Nietzsche, and the modem philosophers who argue without a meta physical basis — is thorough; but no doubt their champions will fight back. And he has little time for utilitarianism. that seductive but ultimately vacuous approach to moral principle. Nor does he claim that his own position is rigorously defensible, but that it is the only adequate and compelling ground for a real morality. and that any alternative approach is necessarily built on shifting sands.
The realist position is thus unashamedly theological or at least metaphysical,he writes. "being the more or less expanded metaphysical claim of Plato that there exists some eternal principle of goodness and intelligibility independent of the human mind."
I started reading the book in the week in which Conor Gearty delivered his major lecture on human rights, whose idea "stands at its core for an ineradicable intuition about the dignity of the individual person." It is this kind of intuition that Rist argues must be explicitly grounded in the metaphysical and moral claim, rather than in pragmatic need.
"To see or know anything adequately is to be aware of its relation to the eternal," said the Archbishop of Canterbury in his Dimbleby Lecture.. What differences might there be if Western foreign and trade policies were formed on Rowan Williams's and Rist's foundation? So the book is not merely an academic discussion but immediately and topically relevant in the crises that surround us today. Indeed. Rist comprehensively describes the effects, seen and unforeseen, that arise from individuals and nations choosing what they will regard as moral truth rather than attempting to discern what that truth might be.
I cannot speak for the Church of England. but the Catholic Church's starting line must be its evident and credible holiness and justice. accompanied by communicating the deep meaning of loving one's neighbour as oneself. Possibly we are a little way behind the starting line at present.
ist's important book. although excellently written, is demanding. Philosophers, ever wary of academic vultures circling overhead. tend to write with a precision of detail that requires concentrated reading and meditation, and at least a nodding acquaintance with the history of moral philosophy. So this is not a book for everyone. But those who want to think deeply about the foundations of morality will find it rewarding.
Most modern philosophers will not. However, they might do well to remember. with Macaulay, that modernity has nothing to do with it.
Modern man has not a whit more natural knowledge of the metaphysical available to him than was available to Socrates. And he may not be quite so wise. Letters from the Front by Judith Millidge. Brasseys £14.95
6 T he music is of the highest character. The priests are robed in the
most gaudy apparel." . No, this is not a description of the Sacred Heart. Hove, in the good old days, but a letter from an American soldier in Mexico during the 1840s. It continues: "One day
whilst I was near the building I observed a female looking at a statue and weeping. Such is the superstition of this race.
From the moment armies became literate, soldiers have sent curious and interesting messages to their loved ones. Letters from the Front provides a fascinating selection of them. wrapped up in one of the most handsomely designed books that has come my way for a long time.
Judith Millidge's commentary provides the context. "What is striking is that although weapons and means of killing have become ever more sophisticated, soldiers' emotions do not change," she writes. "It is clear from their letters that Wellington's soldiers felt exactly the same mixture of pride. apprehension and determination as their descendants fighting in the deserts of North Africa or the jungles of Vietnam."
We begin with the American War of Independence. Lt Col Francis Smith. a King's man charged with confiscating weapons from the colonists, provides a lofty account of a skirmish at Concord. "Notwithstanding the enemy's numbers. they did not make one gallant effort." he declares loyally.
General Burgoyne records his surrender in a letter to his nieces positively dripping with self pity: "I have been surrounded by enemies. ill-treated by pretended friends, abandoned by a considerable part of my own army ... shot through my hat and waistcoat. my nearest friends killed round me."
Major William Wane, serving with Wellington in the Peninsula, sounds an equally peevish note: "I have been most truly vexed at not receiving your very affectionate letters of 5th July and 2nd August, till yesterday. The stupid clerks in the army post-office ..."
But. of course, most soldiers had worse things to worry about. and the letters from the American Civil War and the First World War make one shudder — even more so because they are so good humoured. "Tis a great sensation to be laying in the mud and listening to Fritz spraying over the top of you with his machine guns," writes Corporal Francis Mack from New South Wales to his parents.
He does, however, find time to visit London. He is impressed by the Tube ("it is Billy 0 down. say 5 or 600 feet. The trains are cheap and extra fast"), but he prefers travelling on omnibuses because "the conductor is a Girl." And so on, past the Second World War, to an American teenager in Vietnam and a "dear John" letter in reverse. "If Sharon calls again, tell her not to bother calling anymore," the boy tells his family. "PS. Have Marsha send a picture, as there's a buddy of mine who wants to write to her. Okay?"
Finally. and impressively. there are some letters sent home from Afghanistan in 2002. Airman Marco Nario writes via the Airforce Times from Bagram air base: "Here I am on the other side of the world dedicating my time and service to eliminate the terrorism that disfigures our way of life. I'm fighting not only for America. but for the whole world.
"I never thought that at a very young age I would be participating in a war that would bring forth joy, peace and a lovely world for tomorrow's children."
We'll see. Jenny Fox