The Partially Examined Life
Posts Tagged meta-ethics
Kenan Malik (via The Browser) on Morality without God (and the Euthyphro)
Posted by Mark Linsenmayer in Misc. Philosophical Musings, Web Detritus on November 22, 2011
In this interview with Kenan Malik (a “scientific author,” i.e. a psychology/biology guy who dabbles in philosophical issues) uses the Euthyphro to argue that presenting religion as the guardian of moral values “diminishing the importance of human agency in the creation of a moral framework.” His enemy is “false certainty” in ethics, whether because you think that basic moral precepts are given by God and beyond question or that science yields up moral truths (note that since scientific findings are by their nature defeasible, I don’t think this description is apt).
In describing Leibniz’s view (which agrees with Plato’s), Malik makes the same jump from the metaphysical to the epistemological that Matt criticized me for in our discussion (the bolding is mine):
Or, as Leibniz asked at the beginning of the 18th century, if it is the case that whatever God thinks, wants or does is good by definition, then “what cause could one have to praise him for what he does if in doing something quite different he would have done equally well?” If, on the other hand, God recognises what is good and promotes it because of its inherent goodness, then goodness must exist independently of God. But God is no longer the source of that goodness, nor do we need to look to God to discover that which is good.
Euthyphro, meta-ethics, philosophy blog, philosophy of religion, philosophy podcast
Episode 46: Plato on Ethics & Religion
Posted by Mark Linsenmayer in Podcast Episodes on November 16, 2011
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:52:05 — 102.7MB)
Discussing Plato’s “Euthyphro.”
Does morality have to be based on religion? Are good things good just because God says so, or (if there is a God) does God choose to approve of the things He does because he recognizes those things to be already good? Plato thinks the latter: if morality is to be truly non-arbitrary, then, like the laws of logic, it can’t just be a contingent matter of what the gods happen to approve of (i.e. what some particular religious text happens to say).
We’re joined by Matt Evans, associate professor of philosophy at the University of Michigan to discuss the text, which seems to be not as directly related to modern debates regarding the Divine Command Theory as we thought going into this. Ah, well. We cover all the angles and Seth spends the last bit going on about Judaism. Oy!
Buy the bookor read it online. Read more about the topic.
End song: “False Morality” by The MayTricks, from the album Happy Songs Will Bring You Down (1994) Read about it.
The suggested donation if you like this episode is $1. Donate via the button and you’ll get a free download of a high-bitrate mp3 of this episode’s song. After paying on the PayPal site, click the yellow “Return to the Partially Examined Life” box there, and you’ll be sent to a page with the download link. If this doesn’t happen, please email me.
Judaism, Matt Evans, meta-ethics, philosophy of religion, philosophy podcast, Plato
Paul Boghossian (via Philosophy Bites) on Moral Relativism
Posted by Mark Linsenmayer in Other (i.e. Lesser) Podcasts on November 8, 2011
We’ve discussed Paul Boghossian and his book against relativism
a bit in our Nelson Goodman episode. See my blog post on this from last year.
In this interview on the Philosophy Bites podcast, Boghossian talks about moral relativism, giving some shades of the view: e.g. you could be a relativist about manners but not really about the underlying principles girding them (“be polite!”). This accords with Smith’s version, in which the most important moral points–e.g. generosity is good–are going to be universal, but lots of cultural factors are going to go into when and how much generosity is considered appropriate in a given circumstance.
Read Wes’s post from August on the Boghossian/Stanley Fish exchange that the Philosophy Bites page refers to.
-Mark Linsenmayer
meta-ethics, moral relativism, Paul Boghossian, philosophy blog
Episode 45: Moral Sense Theory: Hume and Smith
Posted by Mark Linsenmayer in Podcast Episodes on October 29, 2011
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:45:33 — 96.7MB)
Discussing parts of David Hume’s Treatise of Human Nature (1740) and Adam Smith’s The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759).
Where do we get our moral ideas? Hume and Smith both thought that we get them by reflecting on our own moral judgments and on how we and others (including imaginary, hypothesized others) in turn judge those judgments. Mark, Wes, Seth, and guest Getty Lustila, a phil grad student at Georgia State University, hash through the Scottish stoicism to lay out the differences between these two gents and whether their views constitute an actual moral theory or just a descriptive enterprise.
Read along: We read the sections from the Treatise and from Smith in D.D. Raphael’s collectionBritish Moralists (Vol. 2).
End song: “Honest Judge” by New People from the 2010 album “Impossible Things,” written and sung by Nate Pinney.
The suggested donation if you like this episode is $1. Donate via the button and you’ll get a free download of a high-bitrate mp3 of this episode’s song: After paying on the PayPal site, click the yellow “Return to the Partially Examined Life” box there, and you’ll be sent to a page with the download link. If this doesn’t happen, please email me.
Adam Smith, David Hume, Ethics, Getty Lustila, meta-ethics, moral sense theory, philosophy podcast
Topic for #46: Plato’s Euthyphro
Posted by Mark Linsenmayer in General Announcements on October 25, 2011
Does morality depend on religion? In Plato’s early and fun (and short!) dialogue Euthyphro, Socrates questions Euthyphro (who’s on his way to go and file murder charges against his own father) about the meaning of “piety.” Is an action (like turning in your dad) pious because it’s the kind of thing that the gods love? In modern terms, are pious actions justified just because of the commands (or, more in the absence of specific commands, the attitudes) of God? Socrates argues that this isn’t the case: conceptually, “good” doesn’t depend on these commands or attitudes of God; it’s rather that God (or “the gods,” taken together re. whatever they might all agree about) desires of us the actions He does because those actions are good.
Mark and Seth are joined by Dylan and by our former U. of Texas classmate Matt Evans, currently an associate professor of philosophy at the University of Michigan, to lay out the dialogue and discuss the extent to which it actually bears on this more modern debate about the relation of morality and religion. A divine command theorist argues, contra Plato, that since God is omnipotent, there’s no sense in which morality can be metaphysically prior to his commands (or his disposition, or his nature). On the other side (which is, you should note, also a theist side, Swinburne being a good example), to avoid morality being an arbitrary matter depending on God’s whims (meaning he could have declared child torture to be good), a Platonist would argue that like the laws of logic, fundamental moral truths have to come first in some sense: God only commands right actions because He recognizes them to be right; they don’t magically become right just because he says so.
Is this just a dispute internal to religion? No. If Plato is right, then this means we can legitimately theorize about moral truths independent of reference to God; we don’t even have to assume there is (or isn’t) a God. Theists and atheists are thus able to have a productive ethical discourse based on a common ground, and religious people who claim that atheists aren’t or can’t be moral are stymied good and hard.
Buy the book (this translation by G.M.A. Grube is the one Matt recommended)or read a free translation online.
Seth recommends the Wikipedia entry on the Euthyphro dilemma. Some of the last part of our discussion focused on the place of the dilemma in Judaism. For a good, Swinburne-esque discussion, listen to this Conversations from the Pale Blue Dot interview with David McNaughton.
Matt Evans, meta-ethics, philosophy of religion, philosophy podcast, Plato
Topic for #45: Moral Sense Theory: Hume and Smith
Posted by Mark Linsenmayer in General Announcements on September 27, 2011
In Ep. 41, we discussed David Hume’s ethics both providing a challenge for any naturalist (meaning one compatible with a modern scientific world-view) ethics–you can’t deduce “ought” from “is”–and as providing an approach to moral psychology. In this discussion, we grappled with selections from Hume’s Treatise of Human Nature (1740) and Adam Smith’s The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759).
Both Hume and Smith thought that we understand morality by reflecting on our own reactions to events and comparing these with other people’s. For Hume, we naturally approve of qualities like beneficence and utility (and not just as a gut reaction, but in our reflective moments), and ethics is a public enterprise by which we compare these sentiments with those expressed by others and come up with a code, where some elements, like this appreciation of niceness, are just “natural” and obvious, and some, like justice and property, are social inventions designed to serve our needs: our self-love and our caring for our families and friends.
Adam Smith, David Hume, Ethics, meta-ethics, Moral Sentimentalism, philosophy podcast
Magnetic Morality Modulation
Posted by Daniel Horne in Things to Watch on August 2, 2011
This September, PBS will re-broadcast an interesting episode of NOVA ScienceNOW, which touches on some points raised in PEL’s interview with Patricia Churchland. The episode demonstrates a procedure called Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS), which can influence a person’s moral judgments as they are being made, simply by messing with the neural activity located within the brain’s Right TemporoParietal Junction (RTPJ):
If you find the clip interesting, you can find the published research here.
cognitive science, Ethics, meta-ethics, moral psychology, neuroscience, neuroscience of emotion, Patricia Churchland, philosophy of psychology
Moral Psychology vs. Normativity
Posted by Mark Linsenmayer in Misc. Philosophical Musings on July 26, 2011
Given that Churchland focuses on the causal story (physiological, evolutionary, psychological, cultural) for where we get our moral sense, does that mean that the causal story is all there is to it, i.e. that by understanding the causal theory, you understand morality itself?
Certainly Kant thought not: the causal story is only relevant for him in figuring out how to teach people morality and the like, after the essence of morality has already been determined through a priori reasoning.
At the other extreme, you might think that we have these sentiments, and sometimes they agree, so in that sense there’s something “objective” about rightness, in that it’s intersubjectively verifiable, but really, it’s just a shared fiction (like the value of money).
Certainly Churchland’s view is closer to the latter than the former, but the vigor with which she took to discussion of actual ethical/social problems means that she’s not an error theorist about ethics.
This for me was the gap in Churchland’s book, and why I built Hume into the conversation. Scholars have the same trouble interpreting Hume in this respect as I’m running into here. Let me just quickly throw out my own view as I’m trying to formulate it:
Episode 41: Pat Churchland on the Neurobiology of Morality (Plus Hume’s Ethics)
Posted by Mark Linsenmayer in Podcast Episodes on July 18, 2011
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:44:57 — 96.1MB)
We spoke with Patricia Churchland after reading her new book Braintrust: What Neuroscience Tells Us About Morality. We also discussed David Hume’s ethics as foundational to her work, reading his Treatise on Human Nature (1739), Book III, Part I and his Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (1751), Section V, Parts I and II.
What does the physiology of the brain have to do with ethics? What bearing do facts have on values? Churchland thinks that while Hume is (famously) correct in saying that you can’t deduce “ought” from “is,” the fact that we have moral sentiments is certainly relevant to figuring out what our ethical positions should be, and it’s her main goal to figure out what the mechanisms behind those moral sentiments are: What brain parts and processes are involved? How and when did these evolve? How did cultural factors come into play, building on top of our biological capacity to care for others?
Pat spoke with Mark and Dylan Casey here about topics ranging from the war on drugs to the rationale of punishment to Sam Harris’s book The Moral Landscape. Read some more initial thoughts (and some substantial discussion in readers’ comments) here.
To read along with us, buy Pat’s book.
End song: “Bring You Down” from the 1994 album Happy Songs Will Bring You Down by The MayTricks.
David Hume, Ethics, meta-ethics, neuroscience, Patricia Churchland, philosophy podcast
Topic for #41: Pat Churchland on the Neurobiology of Morality (Plus Hume’s Ethics)
Posted by Mark Linsenmayer in General Announcements on June 27, 2011
With special Guest Pat Churchland herself!
What does the physiology of the brain have to do with ethics? We were contacted by Pat Churchland’s publisher and invited to speak with her about her new book Braintrust: What Neuroscience Tells Us about Morality.
She was good enough to chat with us (Mark and Dylan) for a full, regular length show yesterday, and not only about her own book, but also about one of her major influences, David Hume, who pioneered a “naturalistic” approach to ethics: we look not for normative laws to provide commands for our behavior, but at the moral sense we already have, and how this plays as a practical matter into the challenges we face in making laws, deciding on punishments, and just getting along in a society.
Churchland’s addition to this project is reporting on and synthesizing the broad swath of current scientific findings on what exactly this moral sense is: how is it realized in the brain and our endocrine system? What mental operations make moral assessments and rule-following possible? Much of her book is taken up with reporting on animal physiology and behavior, so we can see where on the evolutionary path we picked up the abilities to expand the circle of self-regard to include kin and associates, to represent others’ intentions and beliefs to predict their behavior, and to understand and follow social norms.
David Hume, Ethics, meta-ethics, neuroscience, Patricia Churchland, philosophy podcast
Episode 11: Nietzsche’s Immoralism: What Is Ethics, Anyway?
Posted by Mark Linsenmayer in Podcast Episodes on November 10, 2009
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:51:38 — 102.2MB)
Discussing The Genealogy of Morals (mostly the first two essays) and Beyond Good and Evil Ch. 1 (The Prejudices of Philosophers), 5 (Natural History of Morals), and 9 (What is Noble?).
We go through Nietzsche’s convoluted and historically improbable stories about about the transition from master to slave morality and the origin of bad conscience. Why does he diss Christianity? Is he an anti-semite? Was he a lazy, arrogant bastard? What does he actually recommend that we do?
Buy the textor read it online.
End song: “The Greatest F’in Song in the World,” from 1998′s Mark Lint and the Fake Johnson Trio. Download the album.
anti-Semitism, asceticism, Christianity, Ethics, masters and slaves, meta-ethics, Nietzsche, philosophy podcast, relativism, social contract

"I’ve never before heard my work discussed like that, and rarely as intelligently ... I listened to the whole podcast, and felt exalted afterward." -- Arthur Danto
The Partially Examined Life is a philosophy podcast by some guys who were at one point set on doing philosophy for a living but then thought better of it. Each episode, we pick a text and chat about it with some balance between insight and flippancy. You don't have to know any philosophy, or even to have read the text we're talking about to (mostly) follow and (hopefully) enjoy the discussion. Discuss episodes and provide feedback here or via our Facebook group. You can also e-mail comments to mark@marklint.com or wesalwan@gmail.com.
Subscribe, rate, and read reviews on iTunes.
Five Stars after 100+ iTunes Ratings.
"Intelligent and funny -- a rare combo. The best philosophy podcast on iTunes. In fact, one of the best podcasts on iTunes." More Reviews. Sponsoring our Foucault episode:
If you buy anything from Amazon, get there through a PEL link to donate 6% of your purchase to us.We Examine
- 3 Quarks Daily
- Anne is a Man!
- Ask a Philosopher
- Big Questions Online
- Conversations from the Pale Blue Dot
- Dan Carlin's Hardcore History
- Elucidations
- Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- language goes on holiday
- Leiter Reports
- New APPS: Art, Politics, Philosophy, Science
- Open Culture
- Outside of Eden
- PATHWAYS
- Philosophy Bites
- Philosophy Forum
- Philosophy Forums
- Philosophy News
- Philosophy Now
- Philosophy Talk
- Philosophy TV
- Philosorapt[E]rs
- Reddit.com Philosophy
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- Teach Philosophy 101
- The Browser: Philosophy and Religion
- The Philosopher's Zone
- Zuhanden.com
Archives
- February 2012 (8)
- January 2012 (23)
- December 2011 (23)
- November 2011 (28)
- October 2011 (19)
- September 2011 (23)
- August 2011 (13)
- July 2011 (26)
- June 2011 (29)
- May 2011 (25)
- April 2011 (22)
- March 2011 (24)
- February 2011 (25)
- January 2011 (26)
- December 2010 (39)
- November 2010 (31)
- October 2010 (34)
- September 2010 (34)
- August 2010 (25)
- July 2010 (15)
- June 2010 (17)
- May 2010 (18)
- April 2010 (10)
- March 2010 (18)
- February 2010 (9)
- January 2010 (8)
- December 2009 (7)
- November 2009 (2)
- October 2009 (4)
- September 2009 (2)
- August 2009 (1)
- July 2009 (5)
- June 2009 (4)
- May 2009 (3)




Recent Comments