PEA Soup

An argument from Evolution against Realism

Sometimes you wonder whether your own philosophical convictions block your ability to fairly evaluate the arguments of others. In my case, my anti-relativism is one such conviction. I find it hard to be sympathetic to arguments for relativism. I try to do my best do be charitable but I know I often fail. I guess I would now want some help in being charitable about Sharon Street’s argument against Realism based on evolution. The argument is in her paper ‘Constructivism about Reasons’ which she presented at Shafer-Landau’s prestigious metaethics workshop (the paper is still available online through pea soup). For me, it just seems obviously fallacious. The same form of argument gives elsewhere a false conclusion from the analogous premises. But, I must be missing something. A small caveat – she says that her goal in the paper is not to argue against realism (even though she does). She does this apparently elsewhere with more success I hope.

ETHICS ALERT

The latest ethics alert appears below the fold.

Teaching Ethics

I’m very grateful for the invitation to join PEA Soup.  For my first post, I want to focus on an issue in the area of teaching philosophy.  And it is mainly a question, not a positive idea.

By choice, I have never taught an ethics course (though I TA’d for several).  The reason is that I have never been able to think of a way to teach ethics that I didn’t think was, in all likelihood, morally destructive for my students.  I am not happy with this state of affairs, however, so I am wondering if anyone else has had similar thoughts, and how they have dealt with them.  But wait, you ask:  Why would taking an ethics class be morally destructive?

Welcome Heath White

We are pleased to announce that longtime commentator Heath White has accepted our invitation to become a contributor here at PEA Soup.   Heath is Assistant Professor of Philosophy in the Department of Philosophy and Religion at UNC Wilmington.  He specializes in Practical Reasoning and Philosophy of Mind, including, of course, as they apply to issues in ethics.  Welcome aboard, Heath.  We're glad to have you here as a contributor!

How Useful is Applied Ethics for Moral Theory?

Below Matt Zvolinski argued that in teaching and researching applied ethics systematic moral theory should play only a small role and can even be confusing and harmful. By and large, I agree with him. However, I’m starting to change my mind about the opposite question. That is, we can ask is applied ethics useful for moral theory. I did not think that it would be at all, but slowly I’m starting to change my mind. Here’s one reason why.

The Radar View

There is an intuitionistic view in Metaethics that is often ridiculed (Mackie is a good laugh at this point, so is Blackburn). Already for that reason I have recently become fascinated by the view. Roger Crisp names the view the 'Radar View' in his 'Sidgwick and the Boundaries of Intuitionism' paper in Stratton-Lake's Ethical Intuitionism: Re-Evaluations book. The view is simple. Human's  have a special, distinct, sense-like moral faculty - 'the intuition' or 'the radar'. This radar is impinged by the moral reality and enables subjects to reliably form true moral beliefs. It explains the moral knowledge we have about how the world is morally speaking like in the same way as our ears and the hearing faculty can explain the knowledge we have about the auditory features of the world. This is a truly fascinating picture and I'd like to know more about it.

How Useful is Moral Theory for Applied Ethics?

The following are some thoughts I've been mulling over in anticipation of a lecture I will be giving at CSU Long Beach's Applied Ethics Center next Thursday.   I've been thinking about these issues with regard to business ethics, but I think the concerns extend to most other areas of applied ethics as well.

Welcome Matt Zwolinski

I'm very pleased to announce that Matt Zwolinski has agreed to be a contributor to PEA Soup. Matt is an an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the University of San Diego, and an Affiliated Scholar at USD's Institute for Law and Philosophy. He works mainly in the areas of ethics and political philosophy. Welcome aboard!

At Loss

WOW. I'm so thankful and taken about being asked to become a contributor. I promise to try  not to clutter the blog with my postings as has occasionally happened with the comments. I also apologise for my less than perfect English in advance.  I've often wondered what I would write if I got the chance. I'm nervous but here it goes.

The topic of this posting is influenced by the previous discussion about decision procedures and by this
If I were raped today
article in today's Guardian. It's Julie Bindel's touching piece on how rape victims are treated in the UK currently.

Welcome Eric Wiland

I'm very pleased to announce that Eric Wiland has agreed to become a PEA Soup contributor.  Eric, who has regularly commented on posts here before, is Associate Professor at University of Missouri--St. Louis.  Welcome aboard, Eric!  We look forward to your posts.