Simon Blackburn: Moral Realism, Antirealism, and Quasirealism | Robinson's Podcast #68

Simon Blackburn was Professor of Philosophy at the University of Cambridge and Edna J. Koury Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Though he has worked in many areas of philosophy, he is best known for his contributions to metaethics and the philosophy of language. Simon and Robinson discuss the distinction between ethics and metaethics before primarily focusing on the latter, where they explore the concept of realism. Simon’s latest books are Lust and Mirror, Mirror.
OUTLINE:
4:31 Simon’s History with Metaethics
8:20 Distinguishing Ethics and Metaethics
12:57 On Moral Realism
39:42 Frege and the True
43:57 Moral Quasi-realism
54:52 Moral Quasi-realism and Living a Good Life
Robinson’s Website: ⁠robinsonerhardt...⁠
Robinson Erhardt researches symbolic logic and the foundations of mathematics at Stanford University. Join him in conversations with philosophers, scientists, weightlifters, artists, and everyone in-between.

[@gilesbbb]

I'd listened to Simon Blackburn's contributions to In Our Time and the full album version is just as entertaining and interesting. Thank you!

[@berick0176]

My intuition that this podcast is good is stonger than any argument to the effect that "goodness" doesn't exist. Therefore, moral anti-realism is false

[@robinsonerhardt]

the sort of reasoning strongly supported by this very same podcast

[@배광한-v7m]

Thanks for uploading such an unbelievable conversation!

[@robinsonerhardt]

so glad you enjoyed it!

[@justus4684]

When is Kane Baker coming on?

[@justus4684]

Love it!

[@profljohnson]

Its just rude to have your cat crawling over you and you paying it attention when you have a guest who is speaking to you and can't join in chat about the cat.

[@samsimpson565]

At 1:01:10 ish Blackburn really lets himself down with his crass, caricatured version of God and morality. The notion that religious people are moral just because they fear God is ludicrous and pays no attention to serious theological thought on the topic. I think his philosophic rigour in this area is somewhat suspect because he’s been clouded by his association with pop-atheists like Dawkins, Grayling, Krauss, etc. It’s really disappointing to hear this from such an eminent philosopher; the interview was great up till that point.