The Happy Tutor brought a thrill to my heart the other day when he, entirely without my hinting or coaching, he alluded to the Practical Syllogism (most of the way through the Tutor’s generous encomium and gratis philanthropic advice to the Disseminary project). I strive diligently to help seminarians recognize the utility of the practical syllogism for clarifying the sort of ethical tangles that face clergy every day. Indeed, one of my Michaelmas Term courses was “Biblical Theology and the Practice of Ministry,” a course in learning how to apply the practical syllogism not on the basis of Greek truisms about honor, status, and excellence, but on the basis of scriptural characterizations of wise actions.
To oversimplify, the practical syllogism differs from the scientific syllogism inasmuch as the scientific syllogism concerns logical or mathematical demonstrations of “what cannot be otherwise”—the proofs we studied in geometry and logic classes. In these syllogisms, the major premise states a general truth (“All humans are mortal”), the minor premise states an instance of the general term (“Xanthippe is a human”), and the conclusion predicates the general condition of the particular case (“therefore Xanthippe is mortal”).
The practical syllogism concerns matters that may have divergent outcomes. In the practical syllogism, the major premise invokes a rule or a guideline for action (“People ought to support enterprises that affect their well-being for the better”), the second identifies a particular case as an example of the general rule (“The Electronic Frontier Foundation benefits my well-being,”) and the conclusion is not a theoretical claim but the action itself that the major premise sets forward (in this case, it would involve my clicking over to the EFF and donating some money to help them).
One of the beauties of the practical syllogism lies in its coherence with a narrative approach to ethics; as in all casuistry, everything depends on how you characterize the case in question. This (in turn) fits the way people really make critical decisions in real life (pardon all those “real”s from a postmodern guy). We think of these situations narratively, not taxonomically, and the practical syllogism fits that way of thinking to a tee.
To tack on a response to a central question that the Tutor poses in his response, Yes, the Disseminary should respond very directly to academic “outsiders,” or perhaps more precisely should decline to distinguish insiders from outsiders. The Disseminary aims to offer theological riches to any who care to partake—part of the reason that “credits” and “grades” make no sense in the Disseminary environment.
Posted by AKMA at December 17, 2002 12:10 AM | TrackBackActually, this is a narrow, and some would consider pedantic question, seeking a better understanding for my own use. Is the major premise of a practical syllogism necessarily a rule of action, an "ought," or can it not be a goal statement: I want X, from the which the instrumental "ought" follows - to get X do Y?
The reason I ask is that most sales activity or pratical pursuasion can glossed as "Your goal is X," "Y is the Means to that goal (or best available means to goal) therefor you Should do Y.
Thus, the should or ought is not necessarily ethical, but derives its force from the goal, no matter how debased. I want oil, by bombing Iraq I get oil, all else equal, I should therefore bomb Iraq.
As a practical matter in the fallen world, "goal setting" with clients can be quite depressing, like grading papers! Only the person being graded is a Grown Fool, and a wealthy one. You can challenge -- it is your job and vocation to challenge -- your student's major premise, their goal, their vision, their stunted values. But Grown Fools do not take it kindly, unless delivered as a Sermon to the dearly beloved who assume that it applies to only others.
I love your remark about casuistry. Isn't the interpretive exercise, the creation of a moral narrative, from the major premise, to the minor to the conclusion, not also a bit like hermeneutics -- we are pulling the details of am ethical situation under a general rule, or under a goal, or under an ethical imperative, or under a moral story or fable, by means of assimiliating it to a particular -- always contested description.
"I am not running a Bordello, I am ministering to the Wealthy."
In all the banter, I really was serious that financial institutions are hiring clerics. The head of Merrill Lynch's exretremly large and successful philanthropic planning unit is a former priest. And he does a good job. (He if you will, works on the major premise with some very wealthy Merrill Clients, I was once told this includes the Bushes, and then the Rep work on the minor premise.
Every World Class Bordello needs a priest, if only for Role Play. But what a temptation for any honest person! Your disseminary may be more relevant to the fallen world of business than you realize. Many a person could benefit in the Wealth Bondage Business from a better understanding of casuistry, an excellent skill for anyone in marketing or sales.
Gonzo Casuistry anyone?
Posted by: The Happy Tutor at December 17, 2002 06:37 PMOuch--now I have to go back and review the intensely nuanced discussion about the relation of orexis to arete. Darn it!
“How did you spend your holiday, AKMA?”
“Why, reviewing my Aristotelian ethics, of course. And you?”
Posted by: AKMA at December 19, 2002 10:33 PM