Recent Responses
My question involves "moral truths" or "ethical truths." I struggle to see how anyone could claim that a moral proposition is either true or false. By calling something either right or wrong are we simply expressing our feelings on the matter? Those that I've heard defend the proposition that there are moral truths seem to try a bit of "bait and switch." To claim that moral truths exist is to claim that something is true about the world. However in defense of the proposition it seems that defenders of moral truths state something similar to "the truth of this proposition is equivalent to how it works in the world" using a James style of pragmatism.
Stephen Maitzen
August 22, 2013
(changed August 22, 2013)
Permalink
In my experience anyway, defenders of the existence of objective moral truths don't typically rely on a James-style pragmatist theory of truth. Have a look at the SEP entry on "Moral Realism," available here. The author is someone who accepts the existence of objective moral truths (unless... Read more
Everyday, people set out to make the world a better place. And every now and then, people actually do something that DOES make the world a better place. Sometimes it's on a large scale, sometimes it's on a small scale, but it's still an improvement nonetheless. And I don't think anybody really TRIES to make the world a worse place. I think sometimes they do, but it's not intentional. Do you think that someday, everybody will have fixed everything once wrong with the world, there will be no more improvements necessary, and the world could be the perfect place, almost like a utopia?
Andrew Pessin
August 22, 2013
(changed August 22, 2013)
Permalink
Nice (and fun!) question. First "almost like" a utopia? That sounds pretty utopic ... Of course part of the problem -- perhaps the biggest part of the problem -- is that not everyone agrees on what a good or perfect world would look like, so that actions that some take to improve the world wo... Read more
Does the principle of increased entropy support or challenge the Cosmological argument? I am getting mixed messages and am unsure which if any are valid.
Andrew Pessin
August 22, 2013
(changed August 22, 2013)
Permalink
Good question, and undoubtedly others are better equipped to give better or deeper answers. But I'll take a quick stab. First, there are at least several different categories of Cosmological Arguments, but I'm guessing you have in mind those involving design of some sort -- increasing entropy... Read more
Does the principle of increased entropy support or challenge the Cosmological argument? I am getting mixed messages and am unsure which if any are valid.
Andrew Pessin
August 22, 2013
(changed August 22, 2013)
Permalink
Good question, and undoubtedly others are better equipped to give better or deeper answers. But I'll take a quick stab. First, there are at least several different categories of Cosmological Arguments, but I'm guessing you have in mind those involving design of some sort -- increasing entropy... Read more
It seems to me that today's rationality is completely irrational in a sense that it attacks everything that is not rational. But who define what is rational? For example, many people like to back up their beliefs by scientific arguments or by pointing on the bad parts of religion. Yet in 19. century frenology was considered science. Today we call it pseudoscience. Is it lacking humility for most people or something else that they cannot accept that in 200 years people will laugh at our modern "science"? And, if we are so deeply influenced by beliefs of our times why wouldnt relativism allow for more open minded approach in a sense that it would allow people to believe anything they want (without the need for justification) instead of using relativism primarily for attacking "old" beliefs (example would be the view that christianity is obsolete)?
Stephen Maitzen
August 22, 2013
(changed August 22, 2013)
Permalink
Your comment seems to be in tension with itself. You end it by suggesting that we adopt a version of relativism "that...would allow people to believe anything they want (without the need for justification)." Yet you begin your comment by apparently condemning, as "completely irrational," th... Read more
I notice that many of the people asking questions on your site are atheists. I am an agnostic; however, I can understand that many people see their religion as a guideline for moral/ethical behavior. Can we be ethical/moral without religion? If a person does not see that an ethical life leads to "heaven," what is his/her rationale for goodness?
Stephen Maitzen
August 22, 2013
(changed August 22, 2013)
Permalink
You've asked a version of the very old philosophical question "Why be moral?" You may find something relevant to that question in the SEP entry linked here.
I'd like to point out an assumption underlying your question. You seem to assume that someone has a rationale for acting morally only... Read more
I notice that many of the people asking questions on your site are atheists. I am an agnostic; however, I can understand that many people see their religion as a guideline for moral/ethical behavior. Can we be ethical/moral without religion? If a person does not see that an ethical life leads to "heaven," what is his/her rationale for goodness?
Stephen Maitzen
August 22, 2013
(changed August 22, 2013)
Permalink
You've asked a version of the very old philosophical question "Why be moral?" You may find something relevant to that question in the SEP entry linked here.
I'd like to point out an assumption underlying your question. You seem to assume that someone has a rationale for acting morally only... Read more
Can reading Schopenhauer cure sex/lust addiction? If it can, do philosophers think that normative ethics ought to be therapeutic?
Gabriel Segal
August 18, 2013
(changed August 18, 2013)
Permalink
there is some potentially relevant empirical material here:
http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/
in the section:
The Relationship Between Moral Reflection and Moral Behavior:
Log in to post comments
According to Taoist philosophy good and evil are equal and should both exist because one cannot exist without the other. However, according to traditional ethics good is better than evil and we should strive for a world with as much good and as little evil as possible. My question is: do you think that good is better than evil, as traditional ethics says, or do you think good and evil are equal as the Taoists think, and why? Should we strive for a world with as much good and as little evil as possible or should we let both good and evil exist?
Ian Kidd
August 16, 2013
(changed August 16, 2013)
Permalink
A good question! On at least one plausible reading, the Taoist claim is that our distinctions and judgements - e.g. of things as good/evil, beautiful/ugly etc. - belong to human judgment rather than to the nature of reality: so these moral distinctions are pragmatic conventions for organising our... Read more
Are empirical questions inherently non-philosophical? If answers to those questions can be determined by polling or science, should philosophers never address them?
Stephen Maitzen
August 15, 2013
(changed August 15, 2013)
Permalink
Your question touches on a current debate within philosophy. You can find more about the debate by searching under "experimental philosophy" and "x-phi" on the web. Regardless of which side one takes, however, it's always important to know which kind of question (empirical, conceptual, logi... Read more