"You guys are retarded!"
Edit: Despite all my qualifications, I still think that name calling and whinging is an imamature, mean and unhelpful way of dealing with the issue with on eof my lecturers. (But it sure felt good to vent!)
Instead, I think I may go talk to him in person (very scary) and somehow tell him that I dislike the sophistry he beguiles everyone with.
Everyone except me. And I’m the only one foolish and brave enough to challenge him. But I don’t last long on the floor – he shakes tables, gets personal, attacks ad hominem and uses magic words in that sneaky, impenetrable way that prevents reason from breaking the battlements of dogmatic, groundless Platonism.
Perhaps I’m getting too emotional about philosophy. Perhaps I ought to just trust God that truth will prevail without my efforts and that Jesus died for my lecturer because God loves ones such as he. And perhaps I should pray that I too can share that love that God has for all.
posted by The Borg @ 4:09 PM
31 comments
31 Comments:
What was the argument about? Would us mere mortals be able to comprehend?
Well, Shy, I'm sure you do a great job. I'll pray for you, so stay courageous.
Thanks for praying for me, John! Maybe we could catch up some time and you could listen to me moan more about philosophy (or something more fun...).
Craig, I'm glad you asked. The lecturer's position is a kind of moral realism that is anti-functionalism, and anti any kind of explanation given to support a moral fact. For instance, (this is Kant's example) if you refuse to betray an innocent person on pain of death, the reason for your doing so "that it would be wrong to betray an innocent person" suffices as a moral reason (sans any kind of explanation) because it is an appeal to a brute moral fact that is just so, without reference to anything. If someone disagrees with that moral claim, then they clearly have no moral sense.
I have a battery of argument against this; 1) appealing to a moral fact smuggles in some kind of fucntionalism or appeal to some kind of ethical system, somewhere 2) are there such things as brute facts anyway? 3) even if there is this possibility, does morality fit into that domain of possibility? 4) How do you account for controversial cases? 5) How is it not functionalism in denial?
I hope that makes sense. If not, keep asking questions until it does. :)
No - I had to give up after "functionalism" I'm afraid.
Gee, the cricket's been good lately... ;-)
Yeah, I've heard it's been great. Sadly, due to my BB and Ready Steady Cook commitments, I haven't had a chance to watch any.
You can do it. I'll help you. Functionalism in this context means explaining away moral sentiments/claims by showing that they orginate in society, because of some function they serve. Why is it then, that in this context I am trying to save functionalism (that's a bit odd, you might say)? Because it's easy to refute groundless moral realism (eg "that's morally right because that's what I think intuitively.") if you can show or at least suggest that morality is functional.
I'll pray for you too!
But, while I admire you courage, I'm not sure it's either wise or necessary to correct flaws in your lecturer's logic. He won't thank you for it.
Of course, as a Christian, moral realism seems entirely sensible to me!
On the other hand, functionalism seems to me to smuggle in a naive moral realism ("marriage is good because it helps to bring up kids, and that's obviously a good thing").
-- Radagast
You could see it as not necessarily correcting, but rather questioning their logic. He may not thank you, but at least you're airing your concerns. Who knows, maybe he'll concede that you have a point (because you do), and maybe that could ultimately be beneficial for him and future students.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ok, you explain "moral realism" and I'll explain what a googly is. Fair deal?
The behaviour described suggests a position mantained by force of personality, needful, because ill founded, vulnerable to the arguments you list. Its important because moral base is such a critical turning point for other issues. Bide your time. He sounds pitiable and unworthy in my view. We'll pray that truth and logic will out, not least for the sake of other students.
You still haven't explain moral realism...
Moral realism is the belief that moral claims are objective, in some sense. So, I'm a moral realist, but I think it's important what kind of moral realist you are.
The species of moral realism my lecturer holds agrees that there are objective values, but they are discovered by consensus and understanding between agents. Furthermore, these moral facts are beyond reproach and no explanation (either functional or meta-ethical) for them.
Sick - blog spam.
So why isn't a functionalist morality "objectively real"?
Ok, a googly is delivery bowled by a leg spinner. The standard leg spinner delivery is the "leg break", which spins from legside to offside (right to left).
The googly spins from off to leg. The idea is to deceive the batsman into playing a false shot.
Warne doesn't really have a googly. He only has 2 deliveries these days, the leg break and the top spinner.
Stuart McGill has a pretty good googly...
And you do it by using your little finger rather than your ring finger. It's also called a "wrong 'un".
There is an important sense in which morality according to the functionalist is not objectively real. There are no "shoulds", merely conditionals. For example, "IF you want society to function smoothly, THEN you will not betray an innocent person." Morality by definition, seems to be something stronger than this. (But maybe it's not, and all of morality is conditional, and obligation only exists with respect to certain desires, if obligation exists at all.)
So according to your lecturer, where do the moral absolutes come from?
Swing bowling is where the ball deviates left or right through the air. It is achieved by having different smoothness on either side of the ball - a rough side and a smooth side.
The ball swings toward the rough side. An outswinger swings toward the offside (left). An inswinger moves toward legside (right).
JD can explain reverse swing...
"there are objective values, but they are discovered by consensus and understanding between agents" -- like the law of gravity was discovered?
So according to your lecturer, where do the moral absolutes come from?
He'd reply that to ask such a question is like asking "where does the world come from?" But I think he means "What is the origin of my sensation of the world?" I think he thinks there is no meaningful answer to this question. You could easily reply "The world" to the latter question, and then provide a cosmological explanation for the presence of the world (so the analogy doesn't really work for him). He might reply that you can still accept the existance of the world sans explanation, and not be in want. So it ends up being a bit of a moot point - like arguing for pecans over cashews.
Don’t be bothered by his petty behaviour and long years in academic land. If was right then that alone should have proved you wrong not verbal games. Philosophy is about questioning and understanding but I guess he has made a career out of his little niche of assumptions true or otherwise and you’re disrupting it. Apart from rival academics who else is going to challenge him?
Your very brave sis.
--Luke
Well, how do we identify the moral absolutes?
When you ask someone why they did/didn't do something, the moral explanation that they give that you understand, is the moral "absoloute". For example, the example he uses is where one does not betray an innocent, and that is their reason given. You're not allowed to ask why because apparently you don't need to.
So morality is just whatever you do? If I choose to run down pedestrians, is that one of my moral absolutes?
I dont understand...
I think he would appeal to the fact that you know that it would be cruel to do so, so that you are acting contrary to what you know. If you replied that you think that it's a good thing to run down pedestrians, then he would reply that you have no moral sense.
People did challenge him on this one, but he replied by bringing our attention back to the Kantian case in point, and insisting that it was beyond controversy. And if a student did protest that people might think differently, then, he would reply that those people have no moral sense.
And if a student did protest that people might think differently, then, he would reply that those people have no moral sense.
Hasn't he set himself up as the moral arbiter than? He has made himself God...
People do have differences on the topic of morality - take abortion as an instance.
Seems to me the only way to "discover" moral truths is deductively (from a given set of deontic axioms), or inductively (using a functionalist argument that actions which lead to "bad" consequences are "wrong" -- but then you still need to define "bad", and that seems to me to sneak in at least some deontic axioms). Or am I missing something?
-- Radagast
You're exactly right Craig, he has set himself up as God. But isn't that the ultimate rejection of God, and to be expected of someone who has rejected God?
Radagast, what kind of deontic axioms are you thinking of?
I have NO patience for moral philosophy outside of church discussion, it seems a total toss...
But then again, some of the best evangelistic discussions I'v had have centred around moral reasosns, but then again, they wweren't ana philosophers who only accept their own premises....
But isn't that the ultimate rejection of God, and to be expected of someone who has rejected God?
For sure. All unbelievers do it implicitly. I'm just amazed at how brazen this guy is...
Deontic axioms? I know what mine are. My point was that he must have some too.
-- Radagast
I think I have him in a bag - his problem with other systems of ethics is that they demand explanations for normative claims. He says that explanations are superflous. Furthermore, we can know the claims when agree that there is no further explanation necessary. However, when he makes a claim, he can't escape giving an explanation. Precisely that we ask for grounds for his claim shows that there is an explanation to give. The explanation he gives (ie the claim itself) still demands a "normative leap". So, just by positing a value as a fact doesn't let him off the hook that you can't draw a value from a fact. Indeed, he now has to explain how he got from the "value as a fact" to the value he now holds. (which happen to be the same, but I think that that doesn't matter.)
The solution to your question is to drop out or turn the other cheek.You can't throw pearl before swine
Post a Comment
<< Home