Click here and press the right key for the next slide.
(This may not work on mobile or ipad. You can try using chrome or firefox, but even that may fail. Sorry.)
also ...
Press the left key to go backwards (or swipe right)
Press n to toggle whether notes are shown (or add '?notes' to the url before the #)
Press m or double tap to slide thumbnails (menu)
Press ? at any time to show the keyboard shortcuts
Time to Abandon Ethics?
[email protected]
1. Ethical judgements are explained by a dual-process theory, which distinguishes faster from slower processes.
2. Faster processes are unreliable in unfamiliar* situations.
3. Therefore, we should not rely on faster process in unfamiliar* situations.
4. When philosophers rely on not-justified-inferentially premises, they are relying on faster processes.
5. We have reason to suspect that the moral scenarios and principles philosophers consider are unfamiliar situations.
6. Therefore, not-justified-inferentially premises about particular moral scenarios, and debatable principles, cannot be used in ethical arguments where the aim is knowledge.
Can we do ethics without not-justified-inferentially premises?
consequentialism?
reflective equilibrium?
meta-ethics
How to live with it?
ethical bets
Do ‘the global poor have a much stronger moral claim to that 1 percent of the global product they need to meet their basic needs than we affluent have to take 81 rather than 80 percent for ourselves’?
(Pogge, 2005, p. 2)