"The basis of morality is a belief that good and harm to particular people (or animals) is good or bad, not just from their point of view but from a more general point of view which every thinking person can understand."
- "What does it all mean" by Thomas Nagel.
In the following text I will try to determine how Nagel came to this conclusion, the exert I will be examining comes from chapter 7 - "Right and Wrong" of the aforementioned book, and can be found on page 67.
The chapter starts with an example of morality in action, in which the reader is asked to imagine themselves working in a library from which a friends wishes to steal a rare reference book. This example is used to present various reasons why you would not agree to help: fear of capture, a desire to use the book yourself, that it is wrong, and that it is against the rules. That you may fear capture or want to use the book yourself are selfish reasons, and not morals, so are quickly forgotten, but that it is "wrong" or "against the rules" are examined more closely. Nagel quickly points out that it being "against the rules" and / or "wrong" are not so closely linked as you might imagine, and that it being "against the rules" does not make it "wrong" or vice versa. It being "against the rules" is not in itself a reason not to do something, but in fact takes us back to fear of being caught. Which brings us to the thought that it is "wrong".
Nagel discusses how the feeling of wrongness comes from a sense of harming others by your action - or in this case inaction, even if it is not a direct harm (like hitting someone), or emotional harm (like telling them they are too stupid to use the book), it is a form of harm non the less, and even if they do not know about it, your actions are still harmful, and therefore wrong, and here Nagel comes to his first conclusion, the first step towards the statement on p67; that "�the thought that something is wrong depends on its impact not just on the person who does it, but [its impact] on other people�".
It is at this point that Nagel introduces the concept of the amoral man - someone who simply does not care. This is used manly as a vehicle for explaining morality, that is, how would you show this friend why he shouldn't steal if he does not care about other people. One of the reasons given is the "God will punish you" line, but what if you don't believe in god, does this invalidate morality, and make anything permissible? Obviously, Nagel points out, this is not enough. Anyway, the fact that God forbids it is not what makes it wrong, but in fact God forbids it because it is wrong, and, Nagel writes, the fear and / or love of God is still not enough, you should not do it simply because it is wrong.
Nagel continues using the theoretical amorist to pose the often used idea that "you should treat others with consideration so they'll do the same for you". He dismisses this idea as a base for morality because of two reasons, firstly, it only works in so far as you think it will affect the way other people treat you, and secondly, it is an essentially selfish motive. It is in effect a reversal of the fear of getting caught.
He then puts forward the other phrase often used by the parents of naughty children: "How would you like it if someone did that to you?", to resolve this Nagel calls for the reader to role play the amorist who steals an umbrella and is seen by a bystander, who asks that very question. Nagel takes us through the feelings we might expect to go through, from dislike to resent, and points out that if we resent it we have reason to expect people to consider our feelings, and therefore, we have reason to consider theirs.
Which brings us to the statement on p67. I thinks that Nagel does argue his point convincingly and I do agree with most of what he wrote, although it was a bit long winded in places, and some of the emphasis could have been shifted to more deserving points, like the universality (or not) of morals, and how important personal and sociological influences can be in shaping morality.