Brian Iverson

It is true everywhere and for all time.

Among the world of people – the human family tree of species.  Animals have their own versions of morality which nevertheless follow the same rules and are related to ours.  Even ants have theory of mind and perspective taking (it is believed, from the white mark mirror test).

I think a non-relative m…[Read more]

Is this article on the scourge of postmodern pedantry pointless?

I find it hard to understand the outline of postmodern theory.  I believe they are probably misunderstood if people think they are saying “nothing is true”.  I think there are some good ideas floating around in there.

Subjective truth is a real thing.  Each of us experiences the wo…[Read more]

I dislike the idea of moral relativism, BUT what’s the alternative? A unrelativistic moral/ethical system needs to be built on firm ground like “God says do this not that.” At the same time, to argue backwards that without God nothing would be really immoral, so we must believe in God is a bad faith argument which any modern philosopher will…[Read more]

Is this article on the scourge of postmodern pedantry pointless?

That’s a very interesting video.  I didn’t realise that “relative” can mean “relatively better or worse”.  This implies, a common standard anyway.  Perhaps “plural” or “various” or something would be a good description without the value judgement.

Noam Chomsky on moral relativism and postmodernism

Davis wrote:

Relative truth.

Ugh. Gross. Why? That is the starting place of anti-learning. It is for those who are afraid of knowledge.

Relative truth

Kinda good

Sorta beautiful

Almost passable

I’m sure that is a very good book, but from looking on amazon.co.uk, the subject matter is more general philosophy and not really ethics, in the sense that ethics is the “good” or ideal behaviour.

If not, anyway, I’m not too interested in the existing systems except in passing.  I have consulted “The Elements of Moral Philosophy” by…[Read more]

Yeah I’d say if you are up for some light reading, indeed pick up any book by Kant (if it isn’t too heavy) and you’ll be asleep in no time. It’s ironic that it is tediously difficult to read and yet the genesis for a family of moral systems of which modern versions I consider the most useful.

Ethics: A Very Short Introduction – Simon Blackburn – Oxford.

I’ll send you the ebook for free if you like.

As for your categories of morality, they are woefully inadequate. Those are just categories that cover praiseworthy actions, a buzzword for justice and duty (which cover mutually incompatible moral systems). That is woefully inadequate and…[Read more]

I know Simon which books you haven’t read. That is: the entire canon of works on ethics by even the most remotely notable philosopher. If you had…then I’d recognize anything you said. But you impose your own nonsensical idiosyncratic pseudo-philosophy onto the rest of them. How can you possible judge it bad if you NEVER READ IT!? How can you…[Read more]

A Little History of Philosophy is a good starter book. It is also a useful reference book to dip into every so often. Simon – I think I recall you saying you have it or was that the The Quest for a Moral Compass. I previously mentioned both book in Sunday School posts.

The study of philosophy is but the introduction to philosophy.

Hegel.

That’s something you made up.

It’s called “doing philosophy”, rather than just studying what other philosophers have done (poorly, in the case of moral philosophy).

How do you know which books I’ve read?

I’ll recommend a book…you can read an introduction to ethics before you start redefining it. If you give me an email I can even send you a PDF of a short introduction to ethics. It won’t take much effort and will summarize quickly and well the history of and main moral systems from past to now.

OK, I’m all ears.  Can you give the name of it, an…[Read more]

Relative truth.

Ugh. Gross. Why? That is the starting place of anti-learning. It is for those who are afraid of knowledge.

 If ethics means helping in response to need

That isn’t what it means. That’s something you made up. I think, redefining an entire sub-branch of philosophy, before you’ve even read a single book about ethics, is not the best approach. Perhaps reading a book on ethics is the best first step. I’ll recommend a book…you can read an introduction to…[Read more]

I’m not sure that people’s needs fall neatly into categories of physical and non-physical.  If ethics means helping in response to need, and helping in response to the consequences of our actions towards others (fairness), then the need to thrive is both physical and psychological.