tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post281599437860331065..comments2023-10-26T22:06:11.166+11:00Comments on Metamagician3000: Tim Dean on realism and anti-realism about moralityRussell Blackfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-54873009084698319132011-02-11T17:42:48.144+11:002011-02-11T17:42:48.144+11:00Well, Felix, have you read Peter Singer's Prac...Well, Felix, have you read Peter Singer's Practical Ethics? You needd the 1990s second edition (but I doubt you'd find the earlier edition anyway).<br /><br />I don't always agree with Singer, but even if you don't buy his preference utilitarianism a lot of his arguments would stand on the basis of any plausible secular ethics. The other thing is that his style provides a great model for us all. Whenever I teach university philosophy students, I point to Singer as someone with a style to aspire to.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-46641665942877432822011-02-11T07:33:02.505+11:002011-02-11T07:33:02.505+11:00The debate continues, and manages to remain intere...The debate continues, and manages to remain interesting. :-)<br /><br />Per your recommendation I am currently reading Niel Levy's 'Moral Relativism, A short introduction'.<br /><br />Do you have any recommendations for further non-specialist reading in moral philosophy?<br /><br />ThanksFelixnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-62866463978125136422011-02-11T04:40:39.368+11:002011-02-11T04:40:39.368+11:00This gets into a trees/forest kind of problem.
I...This gets into a trees/forest kind of problem. <br /><br />It must be emphasized that differences as to what well-being is among people who disagree are not differences that "trickle up" and throw their common premise into question.<br /><br />Lots of people (I don't think you are one of them, Russell) take these kinds of variability as if they were proofs against objectivity in a fundamental sense, which I think is wrong.<br /><br />Slightly related, an analogy I've recently become fond of: weather is in a sense context dependent- it changes depending on time or place and changes depending on conditions even at the same time and place.<br /><br />So you could say "there is no one single description of weather that applies to all places" but this is no threat to the study of meteorology. It so happens that the objective character of meteorology is such that it can account for these kinds of variations.<br /><br />We could ask "how does one decide" what does into the definition of weather in the first place? A debate worth having. But phenomenon continues to exist regardless of how we label it.<br /><br />And similarly with human interests. People are born into a human condition that supplies them with interests that are of concern to them regardless of whether they fit to this or that philosophical definition of "morality."josef johannhttp://josefjohann.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.com