Keyboard Shortcuts?

×
  • →Next step
  • ←Previous step
  • ↓Skip this slide
  • ↑Previous slide
  • mShow slide thumbnails
  • nShow notes
  • hShow handout latex source
  • NShow talk notes latex source

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

 

Week 07 Questions:

Moral Psychology

https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/philosophy/intranets/undergraduate/ugmoduleevaluation/#PH380

Baldouin

Could you briefly go over what a moral principle is?

descriptive (is)

You did not harm others.

Many people make judgements about particular moral scenarios which are consistent with the principle that your duty not to harm ranks about your duty to help.

normative (ought)

You ought not to harm others.

Your duty not to harm ranks about your duty to help.

Willingness to help is a virtue.

Does this mean we are going from an is to an ought? Not obviously!

People are mostly right about ethics.

Baldouin

Could you briefly go over what a moral principle is?

Baldouin

Kant’s point is that whether a normative principle is true cannot depend on empirical observations (or in Foot’s case how people judge certain scenarios).

So findings in moral psychology can undermine [...] claims about how people judge in a given situation but they can never show whether the principle itself is true or false in a normative sense.

Only reason can tell.

Where am I going wrong?

I think Baldouin is right that Kant’s being wrong depends only on Foot’s argument; as far as that goes, I think we don't need discoveries in moral psychology.

Argument #1 (distraction)

1. Foot’s argument involves premises which are empirical observations.

2. Whether or not Foot’s argument is right, an argument of this form could succeed.

3. Therefore, Kant was wrong.

Argument #2 (substance)

1. Foot’s argument involves premises which are empirical observations.

2. Knowledge of these premises turns out to depend on discoveries in moral psychology.

3. Foot’s broad approach is ok.

4. Therefore, moral psychology could play a role ...

Baldouin

Kant’s point is that whether a normative principle is true cannot depend on empirical observations (or in Foot’s case how people judge certain scenarios).

So findings in moral psychology can undermine [...] claims about how people judge in a given situation but they can never show whether the principle itself is true or false in a normative sense.

Only reason can tell.

Where am I going wrong?

https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/philosophy/intranets/undergraduate/ugmoduleevaluation/#PH380

more questions?

https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/philosophy/intranets/undergraduate/ugmoduleevaluation/#PH380