Would it be better if more scientists studied philosophy?

_{Denyse O'Leary

November 15, 2021

Intelligent Design, Philosophy, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Instead of ridiculing it, as Stephen Hawking did?

From a practical standpoint, philosophy requires clear, logical thinking. A person who has a degree in philosophy has therefore shown an ability to think — a useful skill in a world that too often doesn’t seem to do much of it.
Daniel Lehewych, “Is philosophy just a bunch of nonsense?” at BigThink (November 9, 2021)

Remarkably, Lehewych actually notices a key reason many are skeptical of science:

Consider public health messaging during the pandemic, which consisted of a pattern of revelation and back-peddling. Worse, this pattern wasn’t even cohesive among scientists and medical experts: different experts in the same fields were simultaneously saying things about the pandemic that were contradictory and inconsistent. This only served to confuse the public and aggravate hyperpartisanship.
Philosophy, as an activity, can potentially mitigate these deleterious effects. Earning a philosophy degree entails filtering convoluted ideas into plain language. This skill can and ought to be used to aid scientists in pursuing a more scientifically informed public
Daniel Lehewych, “Is philosophy just a bunch of nonsense?” at BigThink (November 9, 2021)

Lehewych interweaves these thoughts with discussion of the anti-philosophy views of the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein. He suggests that scientists study philosophy so as to avoid sounding like “sanctimonious know-it-alls.”

Maybe. Of course, it would also help to be right more often, as that would at least lead to more consistent messaging.

You may also wish to read: At Evolution News: C. S. Lewis and the argument for theism from reason Jay Richards: Natural selection could conceivably select for survival-enhancing behavior. But it has no tool for selecting only the behaviors caused by true beliefs, and weeding out all the others. So if our reasoning faculties came about as most naturalists assume they have, then we have little reason to assume they are reliable in the sense of giving us true beliefs. And that applies to our belief that naturalism is true.

Comments

In the last month I have uncovered some extremely good sources on philosophy and logic. So dead threads are worth something and I am posting them here for whoever is interested. So take time away from the rants to learn something. On logic, William Briggs's new book is outstanding as it illustrates very clearly all the fallacies used in argumentation and is especially appropriate here during the rants.
Everything You Believe Is Wrong
https://wmbriggs.com/uncertainty-book/ Then on philosophy itself, the Master of Teaching Philosophy, Michael Sugrue has uploaded 56 lectures, roughly 45 minutes each on philosophy from the Greeks to the current day. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFaYLR_1aryjfB7hLrKGRaQ/videos Here is a commentary about him by a young man who describes his style https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxkRLGRH1Xg Michael Sugrue has a current podcast with his daughter who describes her first awareness of what her father does
When I was 4 years old, my dad decided that it was time for my intro to philosophy. So he told me, "Did you know that I get all my ideas at the idea store?". This didn't sit well with me and I kept insisting "No you don't!". For the next two years, many car rides were spent talking about the idea store. It baffled my little mind but I kept trying to reason with him the best I could. At age 6 I found the solution. "You can't see and touch ideas. You can only buy things you can see and touch. Ideas are different". My dad was ecstatic. He had just taught his daughter the basics of metaphysics.
https://anchor.fm/genevieve-sugrue/support The ranters here might want to listen to the first podcast in July between Michael Sugure and Genevieve. It's on Kant and the Categorical Imperative https://anchor.fm/genevieve-sugrue/episodes/The-Categorical-Imperative-e1473ep It might stop a lot of the ranting. Of course the ranters don't want to learn, they just want to rant. My favorite lecture by Michael Sugrue - Marcus Aurelius and Stoicism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Auuk1y4DRgkjerry_{December 17, 2021
December
12
Dec
17
17
2021
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

WJM, 143:
I guess that’s your way of saying that if I live my enjoyable life happy and content to its end, then I suffer no consequences for my damaged conscience or failure to do my duties; other people will pay the consequences. Unless there is a price I’m going to have to pay, that sounds like someone else’s problem.
With all due respect, this inadvertently exposes the breakdown of mutuality and linked issues of empathy, recognition of common dignity and worth. In a sense, we must be thankful for willingness to put the matter frankly, but this speaks to points of concern (and for those who pray, to points for prayer). I again point to Locke's citation of Hooker at a key point in his 2nd essay on civil gov't:
[2nd Treatise on Civil Gov't, Ch 2 sec. 5, citing "the judicious [Anglican Canon, Richard] Hooker":] . . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [This directly echoes St. Paul in Rom 2: "14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . . " and 13: "9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law . . . " Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [Eccl. Polity ,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80, cf. here. Emphasis added.] [Augmented citation, Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government, Ch 2 Sect. 5. ]
Let us pause, ponder, recognise. KFkairosfocus_{November 21, 2021
November
11
Nov
21
21
2021
12:51 AM
12
12
51
AM
PDT}

PPS: Why does it seem to some, so hard to recognise from our circumstances as embodied creatures? If we are mechanically and/or stochastically governed (including as passed through accidents of cultural and individual circumstances) we are not responsibly, rationally free, and our vaunted intellectual life collapses in discredit. If we are self-moved, significantly free minded creatures then we face the challenge to recognise the due ends of our cognitive capabilities and linked ability to decide, love, act freely: we are morally governed, leading to the is-ought gap that ever challenges us to seek truth and act soundly and justly, informed by the good. In that light, we can readily see how there would be first principles that pervade our cognitive life and serve to guide sound action, principles we neglect, ignore or distort at peril. In that, history has many hard bought lessons.kairosfocus_{November 21, 2021
November
11
Nov
21
21
2021
12:33 AM
12
12
33
AM
PDT}

F/N: I excerpt Havel's essay, this is a lesson of living memory history:
The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: "Workers of the world, unite!" Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment's thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean? I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life "in harmony with society," as they say. Obviously the greengrocer is indifferent to the semantic content of the slogan on exhibit; he does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: "I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace." This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocer's superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogan's real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocer's existence. It reflects his vital interests. But what are those vital interests? Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan "I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient;' he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth. The greengrocer would be embarrassed and ashamed to put such an unequivocal statement of his own degradation in the shop window, and quite naturally so, for he is a human being and thus has a sense of his own dignity. To overcome this complication, his expression of loyalty must take the form of a sign which, at least on its textual surface, indicates a level of disinterested conviction. It must allow the greengrocer to say, "What's wrong with the workers of the world uniting?" Thus the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the facade of something high. And that something is ideology. Ideology is a specious way of relating to the world. It offers human beings the illusion of an identity, of dignity, and of morality while making it easier for them to part with them. As the repository of something suprapersonal and objective, it enables people to deceive their conscience and conceal their true position and their inglorious modus vivendi, both from the world and from themselves. It is a very pragmatic but, at the same time, an apparently dignified way of legitimizing what is above, below, and on either side. It is directed toward people and toward God. It is a veil behind which human beings can hide their own fallen existence, their trivialization, and their adaptation to the status quo. It is an excuse that everyone can use, from the greengrocer, who conceals his fear of losing his job behind an alleged interest in the unification of the workers of the world, to the highest functionary, whose interest in staying in power can be cloaked in phrases about service to the working class. The primary excusatory function of ideology, therefore, is to provide people, both as victims and pillars of the post-totalitarian system, with the illusion that the system is in harmony with the human order and the order of the universe . . .
kairosfocus_{November 21, 2021
November
11
Nov
21
21
2021
12:18 AM
12
12
18
AM
PDT}

PPS: Solomon, echoing his father, David, in what was in effect a manual for princes:
Prov 1: 1 The proverbs of Solomon, son of David, king of Israel: 2 To know wisdom and instruction, to understand words of insight, 3 to receive instruction in wise dealing, in righteousness, justice, and equity; 4 to give prudence to the simple, knowledge and discretion to the youth— 5 Let the wise hear and increase in learning, and the one who understands obtain guidance, 6 to understand a proverb and a saying, the words of the wise and their riddles. 7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction. [ESV]
He of course goes on to emphasise a linked lesson, that we are finite, fallible, morally struggling and prone to ill-will, with potentially ruinous consequences. Today, we confuse liberty with licence and claimed rights with actual mutually compossible rights that require mutuality such that we do not impose under false colours the tainting of sound conscience from enabling evils. Including the sort of forced lying Havel described in his case study of the greengrocer in Power of the Powerless.kairosfocus_{November 21, 2021
November
11
Nov
21
21
2021
12:07 AM
12
12
07
AM
PDT}

JS, our learning and growing in understanding is not a condition of whether or no something is the case. It can readily be shown that core Mathematics obtains in any possible world, being part of the framework of being a possible world, yet we must study starting with things like addition facts and multiplication tables. Even the self-evident 2 + 3 = 5 is learned, indeed memorised by deep repetition. Experience awakens insight. Similarly, that we must learn that fire burns or the like. In short, if learned, then effectively an arbitrary convention is demonstrably a fallacy as we can and do learn many truths. In that context, it is clear that the due end of our cognition is truth and linked wisdom, in love, with justice, which is a condition of the thriving of our communities (we are social beings), families and individuals; evils such as lying being parasitical on such. Where, too, to gain rhetorical traction for your objections -- direct or indirect, again and again you have been forced to appeal to the same first duties you would overthrow. Just above you imply fact claims implying duties to truth and suggest issues of reasoning, warrant etc implying other duties. The point remains, inescapable so inescapably true as first principles antecedent to argument. KF PS: I refresh memory on one of these as inescapable, from Epictetus:
DISCOURSES CHAPTER XXV How is logic necessary? When someone in [Epictetus'] audience said, Convince me that logic is necessary, he answered: Do you wish me to demonstrate this to you?—Yes.—Well, then, must I use a demonstrative argument?—And when the questioner had agreed to that, Epictetus asked him. How, then, will you know if I impose upon you?—As the man had no answer to give, Epictetus said: Do you see how you yourself admit that all this instruction is necessary, if, without it, you cannot so much as know whether it is necessary or not? [Notice, inescapable, thus self evidently true and antecedent to the inferential reasoning that provides deductive proofs and frameworks, including axiomatic systems and propositional calculus etc. Cf J. C. Wright]
kairosfocus_{November 21, 2021
November
11
Nov
21
21
2021
12:03 AM
12
12
03
AM
PDT}

JS, flailing, even as you try to object to first duties while appealing to them. A case study on what is going wrong. KF
Is it possible to appeal to a conditioned response? Jerry, have fun at the hockey game.Joe Schooner_{November 20, 2021
November
11
Nov
20
20
2021
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

Enjoy your Hockey match.kairosfocus_{November 20, 2021
November
11
Nov
20
20
2021
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

Jerry et al, it is much easier to see the force of the first duties when one is the target of unjust behaviour, especially destructive slander that endangers livelihood, life and life opportunities. What is harder is to recognise mutuality of core rights without getting tangled up in wrongs posing as rights. (Think of the old "right" to the virgins of the village or estate.) Of course, some things like dangers of fire and of streets have to be learned. KFkairosfocus_{November 20, 2021
November
11
Nov
20
20
2021
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT}

Objectives are built in. Duties are what’s necessary to reach objectives. Cicero’s first duties characterize specific actions of behaviors necessary. This has become a semantic game. Speaking of games. Off to a hockey game.jerry_{November 20, 2021
November
11
Nov
20
20
2021
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

Jerry, going by the past 100 years, the intent would be to get the state to demonise, confiscate, show trial and gulag wave after wave of the newly targetted. The current push is to demonise anyone who stands in their way, including of their sponsored red guard mobs and street thugs, especially if one so much as brandishes a firearm, much less actually shoots even in immediate peril of life. I keep thinking of that couple in that gated community in was it Kansas City. I think this is a miscalculation but I think the higher level objective is a distracted, weakened, paralysed US at the time China pushes for blue ocean breakout. KFkairosfocus_{November 20, 2021
November
11
Nov
20
20
2021
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT}

JS, flailing, even as you try to object to first duties while appealing to them. A case study on what is going wrong. KFkairosfocus_{November 20, 2021
November
11
Nov
20
20
2021
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

Nobody is arguing that truthfulness is not a beneficial behavior for surviving and thriving in a social environment. What is being argued is whether it is an objective first duty, whatever that means, or a learned/conditioned behavior. You have learned many behaviors that make your survival in society easier. Are they all first duties?Joe Schooner_{November 20, 2021
November
11
Nov
20
20
2021
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT}

If a behavior must be “beaten” into us, how can it be a first duty.
Maybe you should have children. If a child runs into the street, they must be admonished in a way that they will remember or else they will die. They definitely don’t want to die but don’t understand the connection yet. And nearly every parent or concerned older person also doesn’t want the child to die. Similarly for truthfulness. They have to be taught the connection between that and other objectives that they desire which are built in. They also have to be taught that some desires conflict with other desires. Some seem not to understand this. Nearly everyone except for some defective people understand this. No one is saying that duties are not learned. The objectives are there and are good. How to reach them then become the duties. Cicero was just saying the obvious.jerry_{November 20, 2021
November
11
Nov
20
20
2021
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT}

Jerry Some humor about the problems in the US https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtbr2ICHv18
The dog was misled : understood "bite in" instead of Biden . Good boy! Conservative dogs are the best.Lieutenant Commander Data_{November 20, 2021
November
11
Nov
20
20
2021
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT}

Research has suggested that truthfulness and lying are conditioned responses. This would certainly explain why someone would have developed a personal duty to be truthful. The first response by young children when they have done something that makes their parents upset is to lie. It is only through repeated and consistent punishment for lying that they reduce the frequency of lying. If a behavior must be “beaten” into us, how can it be a first duty.Joe Schooner_{November 20, 2021
November
11
Nov
20
20
2021
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT}

Some humor about the problems in the US https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtbr2ICHv18jerry_{November 20, 2021
November
11
Nov
20
20
2021
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT}

KF @141, I guess that's your way of saying that if I live my enjoyable life happy and content to its end, then I suffer no consequences for my damaged conscience or failure to do my duties; other people will pay the consequences. Unless there is a price I'm going to have to pay, that sounds like someone else's problem.William J Murray_{November 20, 2021
November
11
Nov
20
20
2021
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT}

What is happening in the US/world. I have many relatives who have voted for the Democrats and these are extremely nice and well meaning people. So I assume this is true throughout the US and the world. None of these people would knowingly vote for any decline. They believe they are being compassionate and that is superior. They fail to realize the consequences of their actions/beliefs. My guess these people make up 20-30% of the people. Then there is a minority but significant that never would have been heard from before the digital revolution. This is between 10-15%. But they have mental issues and dominate the internet. So it seems that there is overwhelming support for their positions. It’s believed that less than 10% of Twitter users cause a large majority of Twitter responses. Because of misinformation and control of the internet by a few, the 20-30% good people are persuaded to vote and act a certain way. Just look at mask usage in one’s surroundings. If someone is wearing a mask outdoors, one can bet that person votes for Democrats and gets their news from traditional sources. I doubt there will be a civil war with any shooting since I know of no liberal that would die for their belief. Most of the talk of a civil war is mostly geographic separation but that will be difficult with one’s neighbor being on the other side. Our first civil war, the Revolutionary War, was such a war. However, before it was fought, the neighbors had to be silenced or converted. If such a thing happens, there will be no need to fire any guns. There is some hope as many issue indicate that only 20-25% have any real support and even a lot of these only have their opinions because of misinformation.jerry_{November 20, 2021
November
11
Nov
20
20
2021
05:06 AM
5
05
06
AM
PDT}

WJM, there is a folk saying in my homeland, one one peggy fill basket. Another, every mickle mek a muckle. That is, there is a cumulative impact when many small things add up to a macro level picture. My usual threshold is if 5% of an electorate swing from one side to the other, that is -5 for A and +5 for B making a 10 point impact in outcomes. If the 5 were non participants before, that is still +5 which can decide an election on fresh turnout. And there are a lot of other votes including with our consumer dollars. As for a broken backed civilisation at the foot of a cliff, getting back up again is very hard to do, on historic track record. I suggest, the USA is at such polarisation that it is already in 4th gen low grade "cold" civil war similar to the 40 year cold WW3 that culminated 1989 - 91. Ask the Russians about their experiences since 1991. KF PS: Dr Selensky are you monitoring?kairosfocus_{November 20, 2021
November
11
Nov
20
20
2021
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT}

Even though the q may be a universal human objective, the p may be very different in different societies, or there may be multiple ps within a society that can lead to q.
Thank you for agreeing with Kf and myself about duties. Objections to it are inane. Of course, these threads are full of inane comments so that is nothing new. Some people seem to delight in them. It’s the world theses days.jerry_{November 20, 2021
November
11
Nov
20
20
2021
03:33 AM
3
03
33
AM
PDT}

KF, So, you're saying that I'm contributing to the decline of civilization. Let's just agree on that arguendo. As long as I’m happy and enjoying my life, so what?William J Murray_{November 20, 2021
November
11
Nov
20
20
2021
02:58 AM
2
02
58
AM
PDT}

WJM, the answer lies in your so what response. I am not in a position to evaluate roots of such damage other than to note that our civilisation is currently on a severely reckless and suicidal course rooted in the entrenchment and institutionalisation of ruinously defective thought over generations; likely ending over a cliff and with a broken-backed civilisation for a long time similar to after 476 AD and after several other collapses. You have earlier shared your atheistic stage and admitted to nihilism at that time, which is diagnostic of serious damage that would require considerable inner healing, for which I commend a certain wounded healer from Isa 53; right now, truth is, I am going through a life crisis involving a triple bereavement that leaves me as last man standing from my wedding party and don't have spare energy to go through a detailed exchange on such. For more details on consequences for civilisation, I suggest 136 just above. KFkairosfocus_{November 20, 2021
November
11
Nov
20
20
2021
02:43 AM
2
02
43
AM
PDT}

KF, you never answered my question @89. I'll repeat it and expand a bit here: By your reckoning, I have a “damaged” conscience. In fact, by your reckoning, it’s fair to say I deliberately damaged it. Also, as I said, I feel no sense of duty and everything I do is aimed at, ultimately, my own enjoyment, even if it includes doing things that would be violations of the so-called "duties" you describe. As long as I’m happy and enjoying my life, so what?William J Murray_{November 20, 2021
November
11
Nov
20
20
2021
02:27 AM
2
02
27
AM
PDT}

F/N: It should be fairly obvious -- or at least reasonably intelligible and evident -- to anyone considering the matter, that our cognitive faculties and senses have a natural purpose of truth, i.e. a reasonably accurate description or perception and basic common sense understanding of the everyday world or its material aspects. Without that basic truthfulness, they will not be credible and reliable. Of course, this does not mean we don't make mistakes or suffer illusions etc, but it does mean that a thesis of radical disconnect between perception, cognition etc and things or circumstances and states of affairs in themselves, is self-referentially discrediting. As a result, any general hyperskepticism is anti-rational. Selective hyperskepticism, is arbitrary, question-begging and a feeder of the fallacy of the closed mind. Further to such, this does not mean that deep analysis or scientific or historical investigations may not produce well warranted but radically counter-intuitive results. In its day, Newtonian Dynamics was surprising and since then, modern physics continues to surprise. Mathematics can unearth astonishing generally valid results. And so forth. But, without that underlying core common sense reliability turning on basic principles etc we have no reason to trust the deliverable results of such abstruse, difficult to work through investigations. The project of inquiry would destroy itself. We thus can dismiss any species of stated, inferred or implicit grand delusion. Plato's cave and kin are absurd. Now, too, we are free, responsible, rational creatures whose faculties evidently have as end truth. That can be taken as a pivotal good: accurate description, perception, interpretation of events, states of affairs objects etc. Saying of what is that it is and of what is not that it is not. Ari, Metaphysics 1011b. Such means, we are morally governed in our cognition, i.e. we are free not programmed or blindly stochastic, and so can and should choose towards truth. So, that which willfully warps, stultifies, frustrates, diverts, warps, is evil. This boils down to our cognition is morally governed. Freedom is ruled by laws that promote ought, pursuit of the due ends of our faculties. Laws that manifest in the first instance as a cluster of branch on which we all must sit first principles. Starting with truth, the means toward it, right reason, and associated prudence including need for warrant for conclusions and assertions etc. These are of course the first three Ciceronian first duties: truth, right reason, warrant and wider prudence. So far, abstract. But we have an inner witness, conscience, a voice that calls us to moral duty actively. Sometimes internally audibly. Soundness of conscience is of course advanced through the first duties. And, if one proposes that conscience is delusion or arbitrary accident rooted in culture and personal circumstances etc, one invites grand delusion, casting general doubt on a key faculty of mind. There being no firewalls, general discredit follows. Sawing off the branch on which we are sitting. Of course, we err and error exists can be formally shown to be undeniable and self-evident. Itself an example of utterly certain truth and knowledge, which shatters hyperskepticism. Which is no intellectual virtue. We see that we are under law built into our rationality. Morally governing our freedom. Further to such, we have neighbours who naturally face the same obligations and have a reciprocal justified expectation of mutuality. Hence duties to fairness and justice. This being, due balance of rights, freedoms, duties. That rounds out the list. Going further, observe what objectors hope to gain rhetorical, persuasive, leverage from: our intuitive adherence to the very first principles they would overthrow. Even those trying to prove are already implying them in their proofs. Inescapable, inescapably true, first duties antecedent to and governing of proofs. In this context, those who insist on dismissal show themselves at best ill advised and unable to see what they are doing. Insofar as they dismiss or discredit conscience, they show signs of damaged, unsound conscience. We need these principles as gateway to sound reformation. KFkairosfocus_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
11:05 PM
11
11
05
PM
PDT}

Jerry You never answered @66. --Ramram_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
09:30 PM
9
09
30
PM
PDT}

Re JS (attn Jerry), the resort to the broad generic dodges the specific focal first duties of branch- on- which- we- all- must- sit first principle, built-in law of our morally governed, responsibly and rationally free nature, character. Of course the particular rules of one community differ from another, doubtless reflecting say differences between a traditional executive monarch and a constitutional democracy. However, reducing that to inferred or suggested establishment of cultural relativism undermines justice and possibility of reform. There is of course such a thing as substantial equivalency and there's more than one way to skin a cat fish. Even Cretans of old full well understood that lies parasite on truth being told the overwhelming majority of the time as normative. Otherwise communication, language, social capital would disintegrate and civilisation would collapse. And yes, that is deliberate use of Kant's Categorical imperative as a tool to recognise evil, by its damaging parasitical nature. In science, falsification of results by cooking the lab books is a destructive parasite on honest investigations and for instance may be a factor in material under-reporting of adverse events during certain Vaccines' trials for the current pandemic. So, again, we see how often untruth is foundational to injustice and resulting widespread harm. KF PS: A useful definition of lying, to speak with disregard to truth, in hope that one profits from what is said or suggested -- including, suggestion by half-truth -- being taken as true.kairosfocus_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
08:40 PM
8
08
40
PM
PDT}

P=> q; q – objectives of humans that are built in – survival; and thriving/flourishing. p – actions/behaviors that lead to q; p – the actions/behaviors are then called duties because they are necessary.
Even though the q may be a universal human objective, the p may be very different in different societies, or there may be multiple ps within a society that can lead to q.Joe Schooner_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT}

Origines, your attitude to truth does not change duty to truth, which in many cases -- see law of defamation and that of perjury as capital cases in point that reflect the underlying duty -- is closely tied to duty to justice. Untruth is the foundation of injustice. KFkairosfocus_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

PPPS: While we are at it, some fashionable errors of the day need a corrective:
Excerpted chapter summary, on Subjectivism, Relativism, and Emotivism, in Doing Ethics 3rd Edn, by Lewis Vaughn, W W Norton, 2012. [Also see here and here.] Clipping: . . . Subjective relativism is the view that an action is morally right if one approves of it. A person’s approval makes the action right. This doctrine (as well as cultural relativism) is in stark contrast to moral objectivism, the view that some moral principles are valid for everyone.. Subjective relativism, though, has some troubling implications. It implies that each person is morally infallible and that individuals can never have a genuine moral disagreement Cultural relativism is the view that an action is morally right if one’s culture approves of it. The argument for this doctrine is based on the diversity of moral judgments among cultures: because people’s judgments about right and wrong differ from culture to culture, right and wrong must be relative to culture, and there are no objective moral principles. This argument is defective, however, because the diversity of moral views does not imply that morality is relative to cultures. In addition, the alleged diversity of basic moral standards among cultures may be only apparent, not real. Societies whose moral judgments conflict may be differing not over moral principles but over nonmoral facts. Some think that tolerance is entailed by cultural relativism. But there is no necessary connection between tolerance and the doctrine. Indeed, the cultural relativist cannot consistently advocate tolerance while maintaining his relativist standpoint. To advocate tolerance is to advocate an objective moral value. But if tolerance is an objective moral value, then cultural relativism must be false, because it says that there are no objective moral values. Like subjective relativism, cultural relativism has some disturbing consequences. It implies that cultures are morally infallible, that social reformers can never be morally right, that moral disagreements between individuals in the same culture amount to arguments over whether they disagree with their culture, that other cultures cannot be legitimately criticized, and that moral progress is impossible. Emotivism is the view that moral utterances are neither true nor false but are expressions of emotions or attitudes. It leads to the conclusion that people can disagree only in attitude, not in beliefs. People cannot disagree over the moral facts, because there are no moral facts. Emotivism also implies that presenting reasons in support of a moral utterance is a matter of offering nonmoral facts that can influence someone’s attitude. It seems that any nonmoral facts will do, as long as they affect attitudes. Perhaps the most far-reaching implication of emotivism is that nothing is actually good or bad. There simply are no properties of goodness and badness. There is only the expression of favorable or unfavorable emotions or attitudes toward something.
kairosfocus_{November 19, 2021
November
11
Nov
19
19
2021
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply