The Problem with Morality | Paul Boghossian, Michael Ruse, Naomi Goulder
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 พ.ค. 2019
- Watch the full debate at iai.tv/video/the-mystery-of-t...
Is good only found in the practical outcome of one's actions?
What is good for one is not good for another - the suicide bomber and the pacifist have very different notions of the good. Does this mean there is no ultimate meaning to good and evil? Is good only found in the practical outcome of one's actions? Or might it be the desire to escape the limitations of human action by striving for something ultimate- even if this cannot be achieved?
Paul Boghossian: NYU Professor of Philosophy and author of Fear of Knowledge. He also served on Gordon Brown's Global Citizenship Commission.
Michael Ruse: Philosopher of science and leading expert on the relationship between science and religion
Naomi Goulder: Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at New College of the Humanities and editor of the Continuum Encyclopedia of British Philosophy
#morality #good #evil
Visit IAI.tv for our full library of debates, talks, articles and podcasts from international thought leaders and world-class academics. The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics.
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses
What do you think of this debate? Leave a comment below
You can watch this debate, The Problem with Morality, in full at iai.tv/video/the-mystery-of-the-good?TH-cam&
Of course there are objective moral values: they are what I say they are!
No one has ever fixed the is-ought gap, just a reminder necessary in any debate on morality..
_Objective_ doesn't mean universally acknowledged to be true, are having the potential to be so. A blind person may never acknowledge the existence of stars, doesn't make their existence a matter of subjective opinion.
Everyone does _not_ have a moral compass of the same intensity. Any system of morality that is based wide voluntary acceptance, ends up being of a very low grade.
Westerners discuss the morality or otherwise of educating girls, but never about the morality of murdering and plundering others. Would be a very uncomfortable issue to bring up among a predominantly Western audience.
This was fascinating to listen to, however I will definitely listen to more of the same when it is uploaded when time permits. In addition, my older brother moved to Tallahassee four decades ago and I thought for sure he was going to return to his beginnings in four months, so much for my inferences.
Every mother knows that what is good for one of your children, can be bad for another child. Good and bad is
personal and depended on time. - The good you do today, can give a bad result tomorrow. As a mother you do the
best you can in order to learn what is good for THIS child , and ask your child for forgiveness when time proves you
wrong.
I hate that this debate has two thousand view and Despasito has 6.5 billion views. Just think about the quality of content that our generation is watching. But well, as there has being said "one is philosopher by being quiet". :)) Much love you people.
Not sure how science gets a free pass everytime it makes a "will be" claim from an "is". Haven't seen philosophers going around disputing that.
Paul was far more balanced. I would have expected a far more nuanced and less narrative driven position from the other two.
Simple. The "Golden rule"; "Do unto others as you would have done to you." (Unless you're into some weird shit, then just do it unto yourself.)
Do to others what they would do to themselves.
"Intergalactic Relativist" lol
I like it 👍 😋
Everything was quite well till they started talking about objective morality, one morality is better than other. This is just baseless claim. To our knowledge morality is simply relativistic, the fact that we are a social species and live in society, changes that, to societies morality being above individual one.
Objective morality is as dangerous to people as criminal breaking a law. That is already happening in society, we have laws. Yes, you can change them, but until then, thats it.
The problem is CONservative governments!
Morality is seen differently by different people of course.
But the fact is right is right , wrong is wrong , and all politics must serv the people , without exception.
CONservatives however think about money before the people , all the time.
Which is the current problem we face in the world today with too many CONservative governments. And CONservatives are not as developed in the brain department for processing critical thought.
The science behind the political brain shows the lack of sufficient capacity CONservatives suffer from .
Too much fight or flight fear and aggression with a larger more active amygdala, and insufficient capacity for processing critical thought with a smaller less active anterior cingulate cortex section of the brain.
Which is the reverse in a progressive!
This could not be more obvious to anyone with any level of intelligence to see .
But if the science behind the political brain is too hard to understand , than you only need to look at how alcohol effects your politics.
If a progressive needs to become intoxicated in order to understand where a CONservative is coming from, that pretty much sums it up.
Google
CONservative VS liberal brain.