Tag: Ethics

Neil deGrasse Tyson is wrong to dismiss all of philosophy, but he may have a point on some of it

So, I reblogged Massimo Pigliucci's post responding to Tyson's remarks about philosophy, which appears to have generated some heated discussion.  After reading some of it, I realized that I have a few thoughts on this. First, I suspect Tyson's blanket dismissal of philosophy is simply the result of insularity.  I've noticed that philosophy's critics tend to be those … Continue reading Neil deGrasse Tyson is wrong to dismiss all of philosophy, but he may have a point on some of it →

Is Philosophy Obsolete? – The Chronicle Review

Rebecca Goldstein appears to be on a campaign to defend philosophy.  In this essay, she defends its ability to make progress, and questions whether it should be lumped in with the humanities.  (I wonder what the humanities folks will think of that.) Philosophy was the first academic field; the founder of the Academy was Plato. … Continue reading Is Philosophy Obsolete? – The Chronicle Review →

The scope of objective facts and morality

Our recent discussions, particularly on the thread about Jonathan Haidt's response to Sam Harris's challenge, left me thinking about the various scopes of objective facts.  In retrospect, it's a bit obvious to me now that a key question in moral philosophy is, if morality is objective, at what scope is it objective? Haidt used the … Continue reading The scope of objective facts and morality →

Why I think Sam Harris is wrong about morality | The Righteous Mind

Several commenters  have said I should not just critique the excessive certainty of the New Atheists. I should respond directly to Sam Harris’s Moral Landscape Challenge. I should say why I think the argument he makes about a science of morality are wrong. (Harris argues that what is right and wrong can be determined scientifically, … Continue reading Why I think Sam Harris is wrong about morality | The Righteous Mind →

Moral values aren’t absolute, but aren’t arbitrary either

I'm working on another post with details about foundational moral instincts, but after some discussion on the 'Morality arises from instincts' post, I realized that I failed to make a couple of things clear.  So, I'm inserting this additional post to do that. First, let me clarify that, in these posts, I'm being descriptive, not … Continue reading Moral values aren’t absolute, but aren’t arbitrary either →

Rationally Speaking: What virtues, and why?

At any rate, what I’d like to do here is to explore a bit more of my own preferred framework for ethics, neo-Aristotelian virtue ethics (the “neo” prefix should alert the reader that I’m not about to defend everything Aristotle said, but rather discuss an updated version of the idea, based of course on his … Continue reading Rationally Speaking: What virtues, and why? →

Big Gods: An interesting read

A while back, I read Ara Norenzayan's book, 'Big Gods: How Religion Transformed Cooperation and Conflict'.  I'm posting this review somewhat from memory, but I've had a couple of conversations about it lately and I think it might be good to move the discussion here. In the book, Norenzayan asks an interesting question.  How did … Continue reading Big Gods: An interesting read →

Why science, philosophy, or religion cannot determine morality

There are some famous thinkers, Sam Harris and Michael Shermer, among others, who are currently attempting to sell the idea that we should have a "science of morality".  They assert that moral propositions reduce to matters of fact about the wellbeing of conscious creatures.  Many philosophers, such as Massimo Pigliuci, take umbrage at this, seeing … Continue reading Why science, philosophy, or religion cannot determine morality →