tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post7016383939233978386..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: On ethics, part I: Moral philosophy’s third wayUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger81125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-20257436392950015192011-08-09T18:29:26.522-04:002011-08-09T18:29:26.522-04:00Massimo,
Good post. Stanley Fish had (for once) a...Massimo,<br /><br />Good post. Stanley Fish had (for once) an interesting reply to the Boghossian piece, and Brian Leiter had a discussion thread on the exchange on his blog, in which Boghossian appeared to comment. I also left some comments, broadly in line with your own, though I'm a bit more interested in arguments against the coherence of mind-independent moral absolutes (though, to be fair, Boghossian had neither the space nor the correct forum to launch a proper defense). Anyhow, you might find the exchange interesting, and if you'd care, I'd love to hear your take on my comments. I was hoping the generate more discussion, but I suspect I was too late to the fray, and possibly too dismissive.<br /><br />The thread is here: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2011/08/fish-v-boghossian.html<br /><br />Anyway, thanks for the blogging. Good stuff.Blinn Combshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17851019534266952885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-51356153130361293682011-08-09T17:46:23.242-04:002011-08-09T17:46:23.242-04:00Massimo
Besides using our new knowledge of evolved...Massimo<br />Besides using our new knowledge of evolved needs and desires...shouldn't we also rely heavily on history and our own experience? The founders called upon anything they thought might be of value before they settled on a constitution and form of government, and before they infused both with ideals. Starting over can be dangerous....as Edmund Burke has pointed out. Perhaps incrementalism is the better approach.DJDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01634608128841501265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-30402238946717438052011-08-09T17:09:56.059-04:002011-08-09T17:09:56.059-04:00DJD,
of course the concept of flourishing needs t...DJD,<br /><br />of course the concept of flourishing needs to be fleshed out. But plenty of people have done that in interesting ways, see for instance:<br /><br />http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/well-being/Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-59896390204543001712011-08-09T15:06:09.475-04:002011-08-09T15:06:09.475-04:00Massimo
It is difficult for me to see this proposa...Massimo<br />It is difficult for me to see this proposal as anything other than fleshing out instrumental means to achieving whatever an individual sees<br />as constituting "human flourishing".It seems that what and whose idea of human flourishing will prevail or take precedent. The discussion regarding what is or should be encompassed by "human flourishing" needs as much debate and determination as do the conflicting means.DJDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01634608128841501265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-62009306837101891402011-08-09T14:44:15.668-04:002011-08-09T14:44:15.668-04:00DJD,
of course the various means would have to be...DJD,<br /><br />of course the various means would have to be judged and balanced, and sometimes they will interfere. So what? That's typical of any ethical system.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-34583191535168210472011-08-09T14:35:30.986-04:002011-08-09T14:35:30.986-04:00Massimo
You have identified the ends (human flouri...Massimo<br />You have identified the ends (human flourishing) that you will use to judge actions in terms of whether they promote or interfere towards the this end. You refer to these means as being in effect judged by their instrumental value in pursuing human flourishing. Does the fact that you have identified "human flourishing" as a moral end have the result of making the instrumental means also moral? Won't each proposed means have to be judged as moral or immoral based upon their relationship to all the other proposed means? Will they interfere with the effectiveness of other means...other individual's means, and other individual's ideas of what constitutes "human flourishing"?DJDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01634608128841501265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-8706794622173207692011-08-09T08:11:53.266-04:002011-08-09T08:11:53.266-04:00DJD,
> What will have to occur in order to tur...DJD,<br /><br />> What will have to occur in order to turn your "instrumental" means/ends knowledge.. into a moral system rather than a knowledge system. <<br /><br />It IS a moral system, it is NOT a knowledge system, if I understand your distinction correctly.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-32407791207502632872011-08-08T16:17:47.480-04:002011-08-08T16:17:47.480-04:00Massimo
What will have to occur in order to turn y...Massimo<br />What will have to occur in order to turn your "instrumental" means/ends knowledge.. into a moral system rather than a knowledge system. Knowing how is different than believing that one 'should' or 'must' or 'are expected to' or 'will be praised for doing' or 'will be disrespected if you don't'<br />or any of those social forces that convert instrumental knowledge (what is ) to moral knowledge (you 'should')?DJDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01634608128841501265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-45774457603613396242011-08-08T07:01:00.756-04:002011-08-08T07:01:00.756-04:00DJD,
I've never been compared to the Founding...DJD,<br /><br />I've never been compared to the Founding Fathers, but yes there are some similarities of approach, once we take into consideration that they were interested in coming up with the best law for the land and I'm after a reasonable moral system. The similarity probably arises from the fact that the FF were in turn heavily influenced by the ideals of the Enlightenment.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-52224021025115174022011-08-07T15:06:13.509-04:002011-08-07T15:06:13.509-04:00Massimo
Having read your main post several times, ...Massimo<br />Having read your main post several times, I can't help recognizing that your exercise, your method, is the same as that used by our Founding Fathers when they wrote our constitution. First they asked themselves, and each other, what do most humans naturally desire and pursue. Then they debated what kind of constitutional laws and form of government would best allow and assist members of society in pursuing and achieving those assumed ends. There were certainly other concerns, such as what kind of government and constitution might have the best chance of surviving over time. But, the two main questions they asked themselves were the same that you are asking. What are somewhat universal desires, needs, and goals of humans....and what rules would be best to have in place in order to maximize those desires and need fulfillment.Is this assessment close to the mark?DJDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01634608128841501265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-74127644223642397992011-08-07T10:36:55.204-04:002011-08-07T10:36:55.204-04:00Richard,
well, that may be *your* inference to th...Richard,<br /><br />well, that may be *your* inference to the best explanation. I'm sure you are aware I'm not the only one in this area whose inferences led in different directions altogether. And you insist in using a very narrow concept of morality that is simply not what I'm talking about.<br /><br />DJD,<br /><br />humans do desire flourishing, as plenty of psychological and sociological research has shown. They may simply not use that phrase, and often they have a vague notion of what it means. That's where social science and philosophical analysis can help.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-4045435056738823742011-08-07T03:09:31.427-04:002011-08-07T03:09:31.427-04:00P.P.S. One way to refute my argument is to give a ...P.P.S. One way to refute my argument is to give a reductive explanation of moral truth. Moral naturalists have tried.Richard Weinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18095903892283146064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-85382830800264461622011-08-07T02:58:13.171-04:002011-08-07T02:58:13.171-04:00P.S. Let me clarify. My argument is an inference t...P.S. Let me clarify. My argument is an inference to the best explanation. Error theory is a perfectly adequate explanation of human morality. The concept of objective moral truth is deeply mysterious and unnecessary. So error theory is the better explanation.Richard Weinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18095903892283146064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-29168732747851798362011-08-07T02:41:29.507-04:002011-08-07T02:41:29.507-04:00"I'm not claiming the existence of anythi..."I'm not claiming the existence of anything, you are" <br /><br />That's not my argument. Try again.Richard Weinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18095903892283146064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-26006023270824134102011-08-06T23:13:16.137-04:002011-08-06T23:13:16.137-04:00Massimo
Humans..do not desire "human flourish...Massimo<br />Humans..do not desire "human flourishing". They never even think such a thought. That's your thought. So...are you constructing a new moral system based upon the way you want the world to be? I would not think basing a new moral system on our instincts...our desires (for status)...would be a good starting point for a new moral system. I am assuming that you are in the process of assembling a new moral system, not attempting to discover one.DJDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01634608128841501265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-49425346112547183682011-08-06T16:39:01.716-04:002011-08-06T16:39:01.716-04:00Richard,
any position that basically says "I...Richard,<br /><br />any position that basically says "I'm not claiming the existence of anything, you are" cannot be defeased in principle, I think, though very convincing arguments against can be made.<br /><br />Yes, I know of Mackie's argument, and frankly I find it, well, queer. I am not claiming the existence of Platonic moral truths (which would, indeed, be strange objects), but simply advocating an advanced version of instrumental ethical reasoning. Yes, it starts out with naturalistic roots, but it is not determined entirely by biological facts, as I tried to argue in the post.<br /><br />btw, apparently Laplace never said that, though he should have.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-60255235088630606292011-08-06T10:40:11.224-04:002011-08-06T10:40:11.224-04:00Massimo,
> right, I meant a post about why nih...Massimo,<br /><br />> right, I meant a post about why nihilism is not defeasible, not why it's wrong. Reasons might include the fact that it is too easy to shift the burden of proof on the other side ("you are making a claim about moral truths") while at the same time equivocating about what counts as a moral truth (Platonic ideas? Empirical facts about human nature? Etc.) <<br /><br />It's easy to make bad arguments on other philosophical questions too. That's no reason to say that the bad arguments can't be revealed as bad ones, or that no good arguments can be made. If someone is equivocating, we can call them on it. Of course, calling someone on their bad arguments usually won't change their minds. That's human nature. But it doesn't make their position indefeasible.<br /><br />Maybe you're not talking about indefeasibility in principle, but some sort of practical indefeasibility, namely that there's insufficient evidence to decide one way or the other.<br /><br />If you really are talking about indefeasibility in principle, then surely by now it's time for you to start questioning your belief, given that you're having so much difficulty finding any good reason for it.<br /><br />To briefly answer your question about why I accept error theory, my reason for rejecting objective moral truth is that it seems impossible to make any sense of it. Whereas non-moral assertions are describing aspects of reality, there seems to be nothing in reality that moral assertions (like "X is morally wrong" or "you morally ought to do Y") can be describing. As Mackie famously put it, moral truth (if it exists) is "queer". It's like no other sort of truth we know. But there is no epistemic need to include this mysterious concept in our model of reality. Human moral discourse and behaviour can be explained perfectly well by reference to people's moral beliefs and attitudes, without any need for any of those beliefs to be true. "Naturalized" models explain what needs to be explained. There's nothing left for the concept of moral truth to explain. To borrow from Laplace: I have no need of that hypothesis.<br /><br />As for why I prefer error theory to other varieties of moral anti-realism, the evidence of how people use moral claims indicates that they are usually used as objective, absolute assertions. That rules out subjectivism, relativism and non-cognitivism. People making moral claims are making objective attributions of moral properties, but no such properties exist.<br /><br />I don't expect anyone to find this compelling. It's just an outline. If we were to discuss this at length I would start by refuting your own meta-ethical view (which appears to be a form of moral naturalism) because as long as you mistakenly think you can reduce moral truth to something non-mysterious you have no reason to take anti-realism seriously.Richard Weinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18095903892283146064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-28069946721998164652011-08-03T22:56:28.312-04:002011-08-03T22:56:28.312-04:00DJD,
> I would ask you the same question about...DJD,<br /><br />> I would ask you the same question about your third way theory. "and it matters because"? <<br /><br />No my friend, it doesn't work that way. First, because I have addressed those questions in my main post; second, because I have asked you first, with regard to a specific comment you made. C'mon, don't be shy...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-7981268891804556992011-08-03T12:22:06.652-04:002011-08-03T12:22:06.652-04:00Massimo
>fascinating. And we know this how? And...Massimo<br />>fascinating. And we know this how? And it matters because?<br />I like your question "and it matters because"? <br />The answer to that question can shed light on the meaning of a persons assertion or argument. So, given that you have opened the door to this type of analysis, I would ask you the same question about your third way theory. "and it matters because"?DJDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01634608128841501265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-10687944160990666042011-08-03T10:15:20.634-04:002011-08-03T10:15:20.634-04:00Richard,
right, I meant a post about why nihilism...Richard,<br /><br />right, I meant a post about why nihilism is not defeasible, not why it's wrong. Reasons might include the fact that it is too easy to shift the burden of proof on the other side ("you are making a claim about moral truths") while at the same time equivocating about what counts as a moral truth (Platonic ideas? Empirical facts about human nature? Etc.)<br /><br />At any rate, in the meantime you entirely dodged my question about what you find so compelling about error theory.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-48589138386696792002011-08-03T09:46:46.104-04:002011-08-03T09:46:46.104-04:00Massimo, looking back over your post, perhaps I mi...Massimo, looking back over your post, perhaps I misunderstood "illustrated precisely by Boghossian’s example of Special Relativity," which I took to indicate that you were disagreeing with the absolutist interpretation of SR.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11332828263550581927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-64850682409728622042011-08-03T05:09:36.127-04:002011-08-03T05:09:36.127-04:00> It would require a separate post to mount a f...> It would require a separate post to mount a full argument against nihilism, something I might do, if I come to think it's actually worth the effort. <<br /><br />But you just claimed that moral nihilism is indefeasible, in which case there _can't_ be any argument against it! Perhaps you meant to say that you might give an argument as to _why_ it's indefeasible. But so far you haven't given even a hint of a reason for thinking it's indefeasible, so it's hard to take your claim seriously.<br /><br />We see philosophers arguing for and against moral nihilism (e.g. error theory). But you come along and dismiss these arguments as "mental masturbation" without giving any reason whatsoever for thinking so.<br /><br />Sorry, but I think this looks very weak.Richard Weinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18095903892283146064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-50660797996280322372011-08-02T23:13:21.860-04:002011-08-02T23:13:21.860-04:00DJD,
fascinating. And we know this how? And it ma...DJD,<br /><br />fascinating. And we know this how? And it matters because?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-7131027696508375022011-08-02T20:46:06.144-04:002011-08-02T20:46:06.144-04:00Massimo
>"Baloney, unlike dogs I try to ...Massimo<br /> >"Baloney, unlike dogs I try to give arguments for why I think something is moral or immoral." <br />I am making reference to Haidt's "The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail".<br /><br />We evolved with the cognitive skills and ability to intricately use language, in great part, to be able to construct political ideology AND moral arguments for the purpose of advancing our interests and desires.....including how we want things to be.DJDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01634608128841501265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-574157367254341842011-08-02T19:19:34.959-04:002011-08-02T19:19:34.959-04:00DJD,
> So does Haidt's dog. That is my poi...DJD,<br /><br />> So does Haidt's dog. That is my point. <<br /><br />Didn't know Haidt had a dog. And I'm still missing your point. Care to be a bit less cryptic?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.com