Pfeifer 1

Evan Pfeifer

PHIL 2310-702

Mr. Wolf

17 February 2017

Critique of Trying Out Ones New Sword

This is a critique of Midgleys piece, Trying Out Ones New Sword, in which she

rejects moral isolationism. In this practice, also known as cultural relativism, one would look at

anothers culture, which might be very different, and would not make any judgements until that

person fully understands the others culture. This practice eliminates rash racism or bias that

could be avoided. Midgley believes that moral isolationism does not adequately respect other

cultures when the practice is used on an outside culture, because Nobody can respect what is

entirely unintelligible to them (171).

Midgley gives several reasons and examples to reject moral isolationism. The first

example describes tsujigiri, which was practiced by samurai, in which they would test a new

sword on a wayfarer to ensure its efficacy. She returns to this throughout the piece, but her first

question is this: if one is unable to criticize another culture, is that person able to be criticized by

other cultures? She references an Indian man who went to Brazil to undergo a medical

procedure, for which he stayed two weeks. When he returned home, he criticized the Brazilians

lifestyle. Midgley questions whether the man should be able to criticize the Brazilians when he

stayed with them for only two weeks. Her answer is that he can make certain remarks based on

his time spent in the town, but more serious remarks require a deeper understanding of the

Brazilians culture. Ultimately, outsiders of a culture can criticize it only to the degree which they

understand it.
 Pfeifer 2

Her second question is whether one can complement or praise another culture if he or she

cannot criticize it. Midgley does not answer this directly but leaves it to thought. She explains

that It is hardly possible that we could praise them effectively if we could not, in principle,

criticize them (172), and that people are able to praise something if they do not fully understand

what it is they are praising. By this, Midgley means moral isolationism does not work both ways,

implying that it is a weak idea because one cannot judge properly. This brings Midgley to her

third question, which is what is involved in judging other cultures? She questions whether

forming an opinion and expressing it, when called for, is wrong, and points out that people do

not know everything about their own culture either (172), which implies that moral isolationism

is a weak idea.

Midgleys observation serves as a link to whether or not one can judge his or her own

culture, because ones culture is used as a comparison to other cultures (173). If this comparison

is damaged, then judging other cultures is not possible. Midgley goes on to explain that moral

judgement is a necessity because one needs to form judgements about the world and oneself,

which requires a comparison. She then returns to the samurai example: if she would criticize the

samurai for seeming barbaric, someone would come to the samurais defense. This person would

inform Midgley on all the customs of the samurai culture, noting that the Japanese do not value

individual lives as much as western society, and that the wayfarer accepted his death (174). If

this person convinces Midgley, then the samurais customs were not only accepted in Japan, but

also in the modern day, which cannot be true. This is the comparison that Midgley demands, and

that strikes down the moral isolationist argument.

Building from that point, Midgley states that a moral truth something that is morally

true in all cultures on earth that is true for the samurai would hold true today for every culture.
 Pfeifer 3

This, she explains, is impossible. Midgley then moves to support her argument: one can look at

the samurai culture with judgement based on his or her own culture because that is how he or she

thinks. It is our standard (174), she states. Asking questions from ones stance guarantees that

the answers relate to their reality, which can then be applied to their life.

Midgley begins to summarize by explaining that todays world was built on relativist

ways of thinking cultures from around the world had to be considered by different cultures. To

conclude, she stresses the importance of having patience when learning about other cultures

because, There is only one world, and we all have to live in it (175).

While I agree with Midgley that moral isolationism is an unrealistic method of thought, it

still offers some good ideas. I also disagree with Midgley on some of her questions and

examples. When Midgley gives her first reason to reject moral isolationism, she presents the

example of the Indian man criticizing the Brazilian town after two weeks. I would argue that the

Indian man should be able to criticize the Brazilians about any topic he has a basic understanding

of. Think of it like hospitality: guests only stay in a hotel one night, but they can still write a very

harsh review. The hotel may have many good qualities, but the guests had a bad experience. If

the Indian man had a bad experience in Brazil, he should be able to say it because the bad

qualities were more prominent than the good qualities at that moment. That was the Indian mans

reality, so he should be able to express his opinion.

One of the qualities I appreciate in moral isolationism is that it attempts to look at a

culture from its own eyes. I realize that this is very difficult, but to achieve this would be to

understand a culture. While Midgley looks at comparing this culture to the rest of the world, she

forgets that sometimes cultures should be looked at individually. It may not reveal moral truths

from judgement, but it does reveal how unique some cultures are. However, I can appreciate her
 Pfeifer 4

analysis of the double standards of moral isolationism can one praise a culture if they cannot

criticize it; can one judge his or her own culture? In America, a country with many different

cultures, it can be difficult to define which culture a person is part of. He or she could identify

with several ethnicities, social classes, or types of people. Midgleys critique of errors such as

these are well realized and need to be considered before anyone accepts moral isolationism.

Midgley states that, while moral isolationism has some good concepts, it has too many

flaws to be considered valid. The inability to discover moral truths across cultures because of

their individuality is one of her best points, but she also makes a few opinionated statements of

her own. Ultimately, Midgley is able to construct an effective argument against moral

isolationism.
 Pfeifer 5

Works Cited

Midgley, Mary. "Trying Out Ones New Sword." (n.d.): 170-75. Web. 13 Feb. 2017.