Joel Marks

This dissertation considers some normative and meta-ethical implications of a theory of emotion. In Chapter 2 emotion is argued to be belief plus strong desire. The 'strong desire' qualifier is defended against the more exclusively cognitive theories of William Lyons and Robert Solomon. Chapter 3 provides an explication of the 'dispassion thesis', which is the main thesis to be defended in this dissertation. The dispassion thesis states that dispassion, or the absence of emotion, is good; put differently, that emotion has no place in the ethical life. Various similar-sounding theses are shown to have significantly different content in light of the theory of emotion presented in Chapter 2; for example, the dispassion thesis is not the thesis that it is good to be unfeeling. Chapter 4 then gives the defense of the dispassion thesis. Dispassion is argued to be good on such grounds as that emotion inhibits desire-satisfaction, autonomy, adaptability, and rationality--in short, that emotion inhibits prudential and moral effectualness; thus, note, this defense of dispassion is largely non-quietist. A special section takes as a case in point the life of the Buddha Gautama Siddhartha, showing how it is possible to understand the compassion of a bodhisattva as an outgrowth of his dispassion. Chapter 5 asks whether dispassion, if desirable, is yet a practicable attainment for human beings. An affirmative response is supported by consideration of a possible cognitive method for inducing desire-transformation. Chapter 6 then carries on the discussion of desire-transformation by cognitive means in order to elaborate and defend a theory of the good recently put forward by Richard Brandt. This theory, while significant in its own right, also serves three important functions in this dissertation: it makes possible a more precise formulation of the dispassion thesis; it provides an acid test of the thesis that emotion has no place in ethical theory ; and it serves as a bridge between the dispassion thesis and the conclusion that dispassion is appropriate to the very nature of good and evil

A defense of amorality as both philosophically justified and practicably livable. While in synch with their underlying aim of grounding human existence in a naturalistic metaphysics, this book takes both the new atheism and the mainstream of modern ethical philosophy to task for maintaining a complacent embrace of morality. It advocates instead replacing the language of morality with a language of desire. The book begins with an analysis of what morality is and then argues that the concept is not instantiated in reality. Following this, the question of belief in morality is addressed: How would human life be affected if we accepted that morality does not exist? The book argues that at the very least, a moralist would have little to complain about in an amoral world, and at best we might hope for a world that was more to our liking overall. An extended look at the human encounter with nonhuman animals serves as an illustration of amorality’s potential to make both theoretical and practical headway in resolving heretofore intractable ethical problems.

The use of other animals for human purposes is as contentious an issue as one is likely to find in ethics. And this is so not only because there are both passionate defenders and opponents of such use, but also because even among the latter there are adamant and diametric differences about the bases of their opposition. In both disputes, the approach taken tends to be that of applied ethics, by which a position on the issue is derived from a fundamental moral commitment. This commitment in turn depends on normative ethics, which investigates the various moral theories for the best fit to our moral intuitions. Thus it is that the use of animals in biomedical research is typically defended by appeal to a utilitarian theory, which legitimates harm to some for the greater good of others; while the opposition condemns that use either by appeal to the same theory, but disagreeing about the actual efficacy of animal experimentation, or by appeal to an alternative theory, such as the right of all sentient beings not to be exploited. Unfortunately, the normative issue seems likely never to be resolved, hence leaving the applied issue in limbo. The present essay seeks to circumvent this impasse by dispensing altogether with any moral claim or argument, thereby cutting the Gordian knot of animal ethics with a meta-ethical sword. The alternative schema defended is simply to advance relevant considerations, whereupon “there is nothing left but to feel.” In a word, motivation replaces justification.

The experimental laboratory can be a horror house for rats, monkeys, and other nonhuman animals. Yet their use in this setting is usually reported in a routine manner in publications that discuss the results. These contentions are illustrated with an analysis of the way animal evidence is presented in David J. Linden’s recent book, The Accidental Mind: How Brain Evolution Has Given Us Love, Memory, Dreams, and God (Harvard University Press, 2007). The article concludes with a call to science authors to acknowledge formally in their written work the ethical significance of such use of nonhuman animals.