- This event has passed.
The Moral Self
15 October 2025 @ 10:00 am – 12:30 pm
15th October 2025 – PPG Autumn Term 2025
STRAND:WHO DO WE THINK WE ARE? The Self in Philosophy
TALK: The Moral Self
GUEST SPEAKER: Fauzia Ramen
Here is a brief biography for Fauzia:
Fauzia Rahman-Greasley qualified in medicine and surgery from the medical school of St Bartholomew’s, London. After retiring, her on-going interest in health and ‘good life’ inspired her to study person-centred counselling, restorative justice, and philosophy. In 2010, she attained an MA in philosophy from Birkbeck, University of London.
For the past 14 years, Fauzia has been the course director of the Gerrards Cross Philosophy Group, as well as giving talks at conferences and to other philosophy groups. She is a former editor of The Philosophical Society Review and is currently writing a book on Justice and Health. In 2013, her farce, The Philosopher’s Tale, was performed in Covent Garden, London, to critical acclaim. She lives life to the full and enjoys a wide range of hobbies, including travelling the European Waterways by boat with her husband, Stuart.
Talk – Slides:
20251015 Fauzia – PPG Presentation – The Moral Self – Slides – PPT
20251015 Fauzia – PPG Presentation – The Moral Self – Slides – PDF
Comment by Peter Keeble (15th October 2025):
Thanks to Fauzia for providing some useful tools and insights for examining our moral selves.
Foundationalism/Coherence/Holism – as ways of constructing a (moral) world view.
Mmmm – I don’t think these are collectively exhaustive or mutually exclusive.
I can take a holistic view of what I will take into account when constructing my moral world view – before adopting either of the other two. I clearly need to take into account my own wellbeing as well as at least some other people’s wellbeing. And that includes their bodies and their minds.
Having done that I want to construct a world view based on some core principles such as my own interests, the interests of other people (especially my close family), practicality and fairness. I want these to cohere as much as possible. So I feel some discomfort when they seem to clash, as they do for me when it comes to inheritance tax – I lean towards a need for great equality of opportunity but I feel I should be able to benefit my children without my estate being taxed a second time. This nagging incoherence does not cause my moral world view to collapse – I can either go back down to the foundational principles and amend them or merely sigh and accept that there is some incompatibility.
However, I also want to bring in a third traditional epistemic theory – correspondence. I want to have good reasons for thinking that what I hope are the results of my actions (eg giving untaxed wealth to my children when I die will help them to thrive) will actually correspond with what is likely to happen (I do have such reasons in this case).
That our evidence may sometimes lead us to the wrong conclusions doesn’t really mean we cannot trust them at all. Concluding that we sometimes make mistakes is itself dependent on a context of being able to get it right a good percentage of the time.
Comment by Patrick Dixon (18th October 2025):
Thanks very much indeed to Fauzia for a very thought provoking presentation.
I was very taken by Fauzia’s description of Health in the broad sense – that is, “the physical, mental and social well being of myself and everyone else”. (I find the term “Well-being” easier to settle with than “Health”, but that is just a personal preference).
Relating this to the “Moral Self”, this phrase (in bold above) seems to me to be an interesting description of the “essence” or “point” that we may choose to give to our lives (following Sartre etc). Or, alternatively, following Fauzia’s preference, the place to which Kant may perhaps take us with his categorical imperative (I think). Or, where Rawls takes us from “behind the veil of ignorance”. Or indeed, where the Golden Rule may lead in other traditions. And so on.
I was also struck by how many (including myself) were uncomfortable with the overlap between philosophy and psychology. The increasingly popular Stoic movement in the US, or indeed the enormous US “self help” industry, seem to blur this line with ease. But is mental therapy really philosophy? It improves our well-being, but does it really tackle “reality”? And what does this mean for Alexis and Richard’s talk two weeks ago on Jung, or Peter’s forthcoming talk on Freud, and my thoughts on “Enchantment” in my talk last week.
Fascinating stuff!
Thank very much again.