tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post9132129139338555311..comments2024-03-23T04:01:39.348-04:00Comments on Understanding Society: Moral progress and critical realismDan Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15953897221283103880noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-86961111998434819442017-08-28T13:56:48.392-04:002017-08-28T13:56:48.392-04:00You are raising the debate about internalism and e...You are raising the debate about internalism and externalism—is motivation internal to moral belief or external to it—which has been extensively discussed in the literature. There are moral realists who are internalists and moral realists who are externalists. To get a handle on the debate, I suggest you start with the authors listed in my original post. You can also consult the bibliography of this article: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01626700826437808172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-42213734579790708252017-08-28T02:23:06.939-04:002017-08-28T02:23:06.939-04:00Scientifc facts are desire-independent, Phil (whic...Scientifc facts are desire-independent, Phil (which extends to biology). That's what facts are. If moral statements isn't a categorical imperative then what is it? Is it reducible as a hypothetical imperative as proposed by Phillip Foot (which she then laters retract)? If morality is a system of hypothetical imperatives (i.e. not desire-independent), then attributing "fact" to morality would be indefensible since facts are precisely desire-independent.Serbsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-38367837422950341072017-08-18T20:40:50.595-04:002017-08-18T20:40:50.595-04:00"Moral realism maintains that there are objec..."Moral realism maintains that there are objective and timeless answers to the questions, what is justice? what should we do? what rights do people have?" This sets up a straw person—it's not the position of contemporary moral realists such as Peter Railton, Richard Boyd, or David Brink. A scientific realist believes that there are scientific facts, but it doesn't follow that in the realm of biology there are "timeless answers" to questions such as what species exist? what adaptations are most advantageous? what function does some biological structure serve? Obviously the answers to these questions depend on history and on specific circumstances. Similarly, belief in moral facts doesn't commit anyone to timeless answers—what is just in one circumstance or historical period may be very different from what is just in another, again depending on history and specific circumstances. Similarly, why should moral realists be committed to foundationalism? Brink, for instance, explicitly argues for a coherentist epistemology which draws on both Quine and Rawls. And Boyd argues at length that moral realism is precisely analogous to scientific realism, and that standard objections to the former rely on misconceptions about the nature of scientific reasoning. Of course all these issues are controversial, but if you're going to reject a position, you should do so by taking on its most sophisticated defenders, not arguing against a caricature.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01626700826437808172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-76355132033570327442017-08-15T17:11:18.326-04:002017-08-15T17:11:18.326-04:00Terrific essay.
LTRTerrific essay.<br /><br />LTRAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-43184706895184146332017-08-15T13:06:32.789-04:002017-08-15T13:06:32.789-04:00Would it be correct to argue then that Sen's i...Would it be correct to argue then that Sen's information pluralism is situated in this same Rawlsian tradition of reflective equilibrium even as it shifts focus away from niti (transcendental principles of justice) to nyaya (imparted, realised cases of justice)?Vipul Vivekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13219234045725031953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-20828863425365272042017-08-12T22:21:58.430-04:002017-08-12T22:21:58.430-04:00There is something circular in premising the path ...There is something circular in premising the path of moral progress on discussion between "moral equals".<br /><br />I don't feel that racism etc. are the significant hurdles to this sort of process, rather that a starting point of (individual) "moral equals" might priveledge individualistic ontology. Non western liberal democrats might have a problem coming to that table?<br /><br />How to make this process appeal to people of different cultural traditions?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-84377393258578215442017-08-12T20:11:07.665-04:002017-08-12T20:11:07.665-04:00Excellent. I'm soon aiming to return to my pag...Excellent. I'm soon aiming to return to my pages at Wordpress and Cultural Criticism, admitting along these lines the issue of Structure and Agency, bounded by a quasi dichotomous character of Personal vs Institutional Values, with respective Categories shared but whose formal episteme differs precisely in a sequence of actions with goals, where Agency is proven. One can think in terms of Private and Public Agency here also, as one is developed existentially, being internalized as to Purpose, while the latter being Adopted from the milieu of events and alliances impinging without...other dichotomous features of the Existential Field: inner/outer, qualis/quanta, subjective/objective, intuitive/sensual, necessary/optional, generous/greedy, fruitful/ravenous, passive/aggressive, defensive/offensive, beneficial/detrimental...both Sets a determined composition of resolved Value, understood empirically as Personal vs Institutional Values as PRACTICED and reduced from the essential elements that construct such scaffolding of cognizant reflection (as is considered here). The more Personal the Value, the more Reflective as to shared values qua Experience; the more Institutional the Value, the more Ambitious as to particular values qua Experience that Takes from the Environmental Resources in order to Hoard and Possess Public Value, reducing Private Value to a Market Place estimation of Worth far removed from Personal Value collectively understood, as to shared and essential interests with the daily Field of our Experience, so much alike in ten thousand ways, but fundamentally different only in One. The weight of one Theory can only truly be measured by the weighty difference of the alternative had, as one looking into the mirror, or holding a shiny new silver dollar...having an obverse/reverse quantity that is much or exactly opposed, but a quality that is one and the same, exactly...Perception of the Existential Field, already Given by the quality of the Coin, and Mirror. Value and the Process of Valuation at its Foundation and at its Periphery, where in the end those outlying the Common Intelligence must fall away as Unnecessary, Optional, even irrelevant if not stupidly adversarial. <br /><br />Love the read. Thanks.<br /><br />DvM Durandushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11179725794883883699noreply@blogger.com