tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4566162782467918402.post755292045863584938..comments2024-03-29T04:33:56.046-07:00Comments on Wrestling with Philosophy : Moral Disagreement Part 1: ParfitAmitabha Palmerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09302663284135239000noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4566162782467918402.post-2021068741206671392012-06-01T09:14:56.839-07:002012-06-01T09:14:56.839-07:00Totally with gfreetek
if you do plan on responding...Totally with gfreetek<br />if you do plan on responding, try using an "I" statement. As in, "I" believe this is the way the world works in my eyes - I can understand that it might take u some time to read ahead in ur textbook but the real challenge is being able to acquire truths that speak to u, truths u'd be proud to call values. A teacher creates challenges so that their students may respond to such thought provoking, mostly questions of existentialism, questions. A great teacher enables the students to think broadly, opens doors for their minds and encouranges the students to surpass the instructor.RedRangernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4566162782467918402.post-56925514826559419072012-05-31T23:55:20.894-07:002012-05-31T23:55:20.894-07:00This provides a neat segue to my next contention, ...This provides a neat segue to my next contention, and my reference to the better informed artistic community: the Founding Fathers incorporated freedom of religious practice into their constitution for fairly obvious reasons, along with the mentioned institutionalised presupposition of a supreme being. To claim that you cannot attempt to deduce the intent of another, in this case at least, is tantamount to admitting that you are not troubled enough to try. Whilst it is admittedly debatable how much we can ever truly know another's mind, the Founding Fathers are sufficiently famous to be well historically documented and biographed, and it should be a simple enough matter to pick up and read a book about them to deduce at least an approximation of their intent in this matter: they were heavilly influenced by Enlightenment philosophy and deist, i.e. non-mainstream Christian and subsequently decliningly popular, beliefs. Never heard of them? Again, please try to read anything other than a philosophy book, and try to keep up with recent developments in the arts and sciences, especially if you are thinking about entering the noble teaching profession, or you will only end up teaching people how very narrow your knowledge is. I challenge you to broaden your mind, that you might in turn broaden the minds of others. I hope that you will find a sense of mission and noble purpose in this pursuit that will enrich your life in a way that you have never before experienced, and that will cause the fleeting pleasure you derive from utilising your knowledge to reaffirm your belief in your own intellectual superiority to pale in comparison. It really isn't difficult to deduce another's intent, when you take the time to learn a little about them, from them. Buddhists have used a system of character and thought analysis for millenia, called the principle of three thousand realms in a single moment of life, incorporating the concept of the mutual possession of the ten 'Worlds' or 'life conditions'. I would refer you specifically to the concept of the life condition of 'Asura' within 'Learning'. In general, I think you will find this a privately rewarding place to assuage your admirable hunger for knowledge, and maybe even find a little wisdom along the way.<br /><br />NAM MYOHO RENGE KYO.gfreeteknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4566162782467918402.post-67831460617069917892012-05-31T23:53:23.666-07:002012-05-31T23:53:23.666-07:00What a tiresome debate about the existence or othe...What a tiresome debate about the existence or otherwise of inate, objective morality. I consider myself a futurist, and broad knowledge of past and present phenomena to be a vital foundation for any forward thinking. Regrettably, as long as philosophers and those who study them continue to operate in isolation from the better informed scientific and artistic communities, this type of regurgitative processing of the musings of others will continue to fail to contribute any meaningful or valuable insight into the human condition or true nature of the universe we inhabit, and remains at best decades to at worst centuries behind truly holistic students of the universe and humanity within it.<br /><br />If you are wondering if there is any such thing as inate, objective reality, then read a psychology textbook; sociopaths are clearly documented as lacking any recognisably conforming objective morality, because the structure of a sociopathic brain is subtly different from that of the human majority in that the part of the brain responsible for emotional intelligence is underdeveloped. Just because a non-sociopathic majority might agree on a moral issue, any dissenting minority undermines the notion of universality. A sociopath would not agree with the statement 'sticking needles in children's eyes is immoral,' except to mimic a perceived normal response, and thereby avoid detection and stigmatisation as a non-conforming or otherwise abnormal individual. A sociopath could conceive of numerous examples of benefits to be derived from such an activity, with no misgivings, as long as they could do so unpunished. So, if the existence of human morality is a matter of brain structure, we should simply conclude that it is an evolved sensibilty naturally selected for in our species because it affords a survival and/or propagational advantage to those individuals possessing it, resulting from the typical gregariousness of members of our species and our social constructs, which are, by definition, inately subjective. Anyone attempting to decry this argument on religious grounds, again, needs to do a little wider reading; evolution is a proven mechanism, and many religious people have successfully incorporated the belief in evolution into their religious belief system by ascribing divine origin to the evolutionary process itself.<br /><br />(ranting to be continued....)gfreeteknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4566162782467918402.post-32970654886173700382012-05-31T19:52:50.350-07:002012-05-31T19:52:50.350-07:00Yo! So I hav been read'g your blog 4 a long ti...Yo! So I hav been read'g your blog 4 a long time. Not once do u take a stand on anything. Yes, ur site is informative but I can read the same info after a pleasant stroll to the library. U have also changed from wanting to be a university professor to a college instructor, what gives? If u were to take a stand on any of ur typed arguments, would that demonstrate that u r committing to certain ways of interpreting yourself and ur environment or would it just irritate u? <br />BTW enough with the dancing shit maybe tell us what the topic was at your weekly gab with the other grad students and how that happened in life, now that is some real shit, come out, man.RedRangernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4566162782467918402.post-39172740984349316402012-04-17T23:40:11.299-07:002012-04-17T23:40:11.299-07:00My intuition tells me not to take your advice (no ...My intuition tells me not to take your advice (no offense).aphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06833922298250450324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4566162782467918402.post-69184931081193660152012-04-17T20:11:40.767-07:002012-04-17T20:11:40.767-07:00Just write "Parfit is right. We can all go ho...Just write "Parfit is right. We can all go home and do something else with our lives now."Travis Timmermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17662517213080357115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4566162782467918402.post-81445167574533987392012-04-17T11:45:43.215-07:002012-04-17T11:45:43.215-07:00if that's case, it's going to be very diff...if that's case, it's going to be very difficult to argue against a claim he isn't making! doh! rewrite!aphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06833922298250450324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4566162782467918402.post-65237996320599778612012-04-17T01:17:56.860-07:002012-04-17T01:17:56.860-07:00Right. I don't think Parfit (or anyone) argues...Right. I don't think Parfit (or anyone) argues that moral agreement entails moral realism. Rather, it's that moral disagreement is supposed to be evidence of moral anti-realism and Parfit aims to undermine that argument against moral realism (rather than give a positive argument for moral realism, which he does elsewhere).Travis Timmermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17662517213080357115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4566162782467918402.post-13221088463220810822012-04-16T14:50:21.353-07:002012-04-16T14:50:21.353-07:00I see your point about the argument from disagreem...I see your point about the argument from disagreement; especially because i just finished Parit's chapter on it. He makes quite a convincing case, and I find it hard to disagree with him. However, I have one very decisive reason in favour of disagreeing with him, and that is I have to write a paper about him and if I write "I find Parfit's views agreeable and eminently reasonable" I don't know how I'll fill up the rest of the pages! <br />That aside, while I'm willing to accept most of his arguments against arg. from disagreement, I don't see how moral agreement doesn't entail moral realism. There are other plausible accounts of agreement (functionalist/biological). That's what I'm going to argue anyway!aphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06833922298250450324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4566162782467918402.post-73388229107277132392012-04-16T02:48:24.558-07:002012-04-16T02:48:24.558-07:00I don't see a viscous circle. I see an inabili...I don't see a viscous circle. I see an inability to show people they are wrong at times. Still, one's inability to recognize something intuitively shouldn't undermine another's justification if they can recognize the fact in question intuitively. <br /><br />Ethical intuitionism requires a long defense I cannot offer in a short comment, but here is a basic point. All arguments of any kind necessarily rely on intuitions (roughly, a non-inferential belief) of some kind. Disagreement over intuitions happens in both the normative and non-normative realm. So, any argument from disagreement against ethical intuitionism needs to show why this doesn't generalize to non-normative matters (including this very argument against intuitionism). If one cannot find a relevant difference (and I don't think anyone can), then the argument is self-defeating.<br /><br />I don't find the argument from disagreement persuasive because I don't see any reason to grant the assumption that if some people have the ability to recognize moral truth via intuition, then there would be wide-spread agreement about matters of ethics. That falsely assumes that all people are sufficiently good intuiters and free of non-rational cultural and religious influence (and other sources of bias).Travis Timmermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17662517213080357115noreply@blogger.com