One of the central themes of Pinker's The Stuff of Thought is that language is intrinsically metaphorical; we are constantly borrowing properties of the physical universe and applying them to more abstract concepts and ideas. For instance, we often use the metaphor "TIME IS SPACE" when talking about a sequence of events: "We just passed the early registration deadline; we are coming up on the final deadline." In our language we treat time as if it was space that could be travelled through. Even when we are talking about non-material things, our language uses metaphors that are, as Pinker puts it, "thuddingly concrete." Some common conceptual metaphors:
ARGUMENT IS WAR (e.g. "he attacked the weak point in my argument")
LOVE IS A JOURNEY (e.g. "Where is this relationship going? I feel like we've hit a dead-end.")
GOALS ARE DESTINATIONS (e.g. "When we reach our monthly quota we'll have a party.")
Once you get the hang of it, you start seeing the metaphorical underpinnings of language and thought everywhere. You start parsing every statement by asking the question: "What metaphor underlies this statement? And what assumptions are made as a part of that metaphor?"
So, when we ask the question, "How good is good enough?" I can't help but ask, "what metaphor are we using to describe morality?" We couldn't ask the question unless we were using some sort of model where there can be "enough" goodness, whatever that means. "Enough" implies sufficiency to meet some need or end. Whatever model is being used, there is some need or end implied: "enough" really means, "Enough for something". Enough for what?
Based on the conversation thus far, I think most people would answer something like this: "Good enough to still be considered a good person." Or, "Good enough to not feel guilty about it." Or maybe even, "Good enough to be rewarded by God in heaven."
Hmmm . . . Ok. So let's try this metaphor:
MORALITY IS A TEST. When a test is applied, it is usually to determine whether the properties of someone or something are sufficient to a particular purpose. We test buildings to make sure they are strong enough to withstand an earthquake; we test students to see if they learned their lessons sufficiently well to use their knowledge in a practical manner. In this metaphor, being "good enough" means you pass the test for goodness. The metaphor carries some implicit assumptions: someone is doing the testing, and that someone has a specific purpose or end in mind for applying the test. For a religious person, the tester is God, who is testing to see if you are worthy to enter his heavenly kingdom. For the non-believer, the tester is Society, who is testing to see if you are someone with whom we can safely and profitably associate.
If we accept this metaphor, what does it mean to be "good enough?"
If you believe, as most Christians do, that morality is God's test for humanity, then I guess you should consult the scriptures and make your best guess. I would warn you that Jesus is kind of a hardass on this subject; when asked on one occasion, he said, "Sell everything you have, and give it to the poor, and follow me."
I'm fairly certain that Pinker and his fellow evolutionary psychologists would support the idea that Society is the tester. Their theory is that our moral instincts evolved as a means towards reciprocal altruism: helping others so we can in turn be helped by them. That theory would certainly require we be very sensitive to how we are perceived by our peers and neighbors, and give us a strong desire to have the community regard us as trustworthy, fair, and generous -- all the qualities that would make us good partners in mutually beneficial cooperation. So, "passing the test" in this context is dependent on the needs and expectations of the community. It would be graded on a curve, since you are competing with other members of the community to be the most desirable partner in collaboration. There would also be a failing grade, a level below which no one would want to have anything to do with you. Evolution would encourage the development of people who are as generous as they can afford to be without compromising their own well-being or security -- so, generous but not too generous. And that model does a pretty good job of describing the way people actually behave.
The question is: are any of these metaphors the ones that I was actually using? And do I believe the underlying assumptions of them?
