Ⅰ．Introduction

i．Pragmatists’ Ethics

Philosophers have long considered the question, “Can people reach moral agreement?” The moral dogmatist's demand for absolutes and the relativist's complete rejection of moral absolutes have failed to produce a fruitful outcome over the past 2,500 years. Pragmatists identify a third way between the horns of the false dilemma of dogmatism and relativism, called moral pragmatism, which argues that, while the actual rightness is not got with hands down, the actionable rightness is. Robert Holmes defines “actual rightness” and “actionable rightness” in the following sentence, “what is right is the actual rightness... only acts that are justifiably believed to be right are actionably right; that is, justifiably performed.” Morality for pragmatists focuses on action, on practice rather than on theory. At the end of inquiry, the morality that remains contains the actually right. But we are still just in the process toward this morality.

Moreover, C. L. Peirce points out that the actual truth appears at the end of scientific inquiry. If we do not have sufficient reason to challenge a belief, and the belief successfully addresses its related problems, then we hold the belief as a truth. As Misak expresses:

The aim of inquiry is to get true beliefs and the beliefs which would be produced if inquiry were to run its unhindered course would be true. For if inquiry would no longer be able to improve upon a belief, then that belief would satisfy all of the aims we might have in inquiry... The pragmatist then suggests that there would be no point in withholding the title “true”from these beliefs. The beliefs satisfy not only the proximate aims of inquiry, but also the ultimate aim of inquiry, that is, truth.

In other words, for Peirce, an actionable truth is revealed to be an actual truth only at the end of inquiry when no new evidence can improve or challenge a belief.

To James, morality is a genuine problem, and people can decide whether to become part of the moral community or not. While people can know what is revealed at the end of inquiry is truth, people trust that it is warranted given that we cannot know whether it is true or not. If we have the will to believe and our choice is genuine, then it is warranted to believe.James proposes that morality can be realized if everyone believes and acts in accordance with the belief in morality.

This paper applies Peirce's notion of truth and James 'solution to Dewey's ethics and argues that the moral postulate of Dewey's ethics is a realizable ideal.

ii．The Moral Postulate And Its Justification

John Dewey's moral philosophy proposes a regulative ideal called“the moral postulate.” That is, we can legitimately hold true that in the long run, the interest of the individual is identical with the interest of the group and vice-versa. Dewey also believes that part of being a good person entails the belief that our moral beliefs will dovetail. If we collectively proceed with belief in the moral postulate, then if it is possible for our moral beliefs to dovetail, it becomes true that our interests harmonize. If our interests harmonize, then in the long run, moral dilemmas will be resolved by appealing to our common interests. One way to resolve a moral dilemma is to decide that both sides are actionably right, in which case tolerance leads us to wait for the moral postulate to be realized and our moral beliefs to finally dovetail. Our belief that it is so, can help to make it so, and this is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Moral conduct is based upon faith in the moral postulate, and the moral theory must recognize this as the postulate upon which morality rests. Just as science is based upon faith in the scientific postulate, and science should recognize the postulate it rests upon. As John Dewey argues in Outlines of a Critical Theory of Ethics , the moral postulate can be expressed as the following proposition:

In the realization of individuality there is found also the needed realization of some community of persons of which the individual is a member. and, conversely, the agent who duly satisfies the community in which he shares, by that same conduct satisfies himself.

Holmes defines the moral postulate differently. He argues that it implies that moral disagreements can be resolved in the long run. If one's genuine interest is the genuine interest for others, then there should be no fundamental moral disagreements between one and others. Holmes, in Basic Moral Philosophy ( third edition ), writes, “It (the moral postulate) is that if humankind strives to understand the human situation in all its complexity... moral judgments will eventually converge”. Thus, the moral postulate implies that interests between one and others can eventually harmonize at the end of the inquiry, and the moral truth reveals itself.

Pragmatism treats morality as a means to solve problems in practice through a process of interaction. This presupposes that (a) moral agents cannot begin with themselves alone, since the interaction is a collective process that requires the engagement of others, and (b) agreements on what good is can be achieved over time through experience and discourse, as suggested by Holmes: otherwise the approach is empty. While there is a difference between theory and practice in theory, there is none in practice.The result is praxis whereby theory and practice continually play off one another until they harmonize.

However, the pragmatists 'proposal faces challenges. Many people question the validity of the regulative ideal since people tend to disagree with each other in the present. I argue that people can and should legitimately believe in the moral postulate from both macro and micro dimensions. I also address two main threats that challenge the validity of“the moral postulate”: egoism that denies the importance of community and moral skepticism that argues that moral disagreements cannot be resolved.

The moral postulate can be achieved because (a) moral agents share an inescapable horizon including long-term common interests, (b) it is justifiable to believe that moral agents can reach moral agreement in the long run through their common interests and open discussion, and (c) people should believe in the moral postulate since believing it so helps to realize the moral postulate and morality.

The concept “horizon” is defined by Charles Taylor in The Ethics of Authenticity ,“... things take on importance against a background of intelligibility” . In morality, the horizon is closely associated with a shared common ground of values that come unbidden with our mother tongue.

The first part of the paper argues that morality as a collective task is possible because we do share a common ground of values. That is,we can get others 'moral expressions right most of the time. If others 'moral expressions are not understandable, then morality is impossible,too. However, this expression alone is not sufficient to argue that moral difference will dovetail in the long run, since we can disagree with others'moral expressions. Thus, the second part of the paper argues that it is at least rationally justifiable to believe that moral agreements can be reached in the long run because differences dovetail by solving moral disagreements over the long haul. The method used is much the same reasoning that lies behind scientific reasoning as in the scientific progress. The third part argues that it is in one's interest to believe in the moral postulate because having the belief makes the moral postulate possible according to the self fulfilling prophecy and also creates hope for humanity.

Overall, we cannot know with assurance that any present moral dilemma is intractable, nor capable of ever being resolved. The process of discourse, moral debate, tolerance, careful analysis and reasoning, reliance on the scientific method and attitude, etc., may always bring a future solution. We only know by trying and meanwhile, it is our interest to try because of the possibility of the self-fulfilling prophecy.