The Concise Morality

Morality—since our discussion of Quintilian, I don’t think we have brought up a topic this semester that has sparked more discussion from all parts of the class. I was impressed with Eagleton’s treatment of the subject in his chapter with the same name. Though there is clearly a socialist agenda at work here, Eagleton’s contrast between moral and moralism is one of the most important statements we have read all semester: “Moralism believes that there is a set of questions known as moral questions which are quite distinct from social or political ones. It does not see that ‘moral’ means exploring the texture and quality of human behavior as richly and sensitively as you can, and that you cannot do this by abstracting men and women from their social surroundings” (143). Though this might not seem significant, it is the answer to almost all of our classroom arguments regarding feminism, abortion, and the “good man”. Morality can only be assessed in the context of one’s social setting, and while Eagleton admits that the scholarly community is hesitant to address morality in this way, I agree that a change, or rupture if you will, is coming. Morality is tied up in our biological imperative to cooperatively thrive, not in questions of sexuality or evil.