The journey so far

I think that basically now what you have to argue about is what is the actual structure of your book. If your basic thesis is really still an empirical theory of ethics that you want to elucidate, then you will have to defend your choice of methodology more than you have done so far in the blog. After all, an ethics that is grounded solely in the tradition of empiricism must be capable of taking a myriad of different directions empirically. Even you have sketched out more than once in this blog alternate directions in which an empirical theory of ethics might go. What makes yours better than all the others?

In the first, case, moral intuitions are experience-dependent1. That means that three basic things must satisfy any moral judgement for it to be empirically valid:

  1. It must not be based on farfetched examples2.
  2. Generalisations may not be made from trivial examples to important examples, nor from important to trivial examples3.
  3. One must actually be prepared to act according to the judgement that one has made4.


Yet it should be clear that the above criteria will not be enough to determine a complete theory of ethics. It was actually when the questions arose about how to adjudicate between different moral points of view that we came to ask whether social mores progress. In this regard, we attempted an analogy with Kuhnian science, but it proved to fail us where we needed it the most, to adjudicate between paradigms. An analogy with Popperian science on the other hand, gives us a clear rule of adjudication qua falsification. Because a criterion of falsifiability seems already to have worked with our surveys of certain moral theories, we are now expanding on analogies with falsification. We are currently exploring different senses of falsification for theories of ethics to see which ones will bear the most fruit, and that's the journey so far.

So in answer to your question, I'm still working out my own methodology. I can justify it to the extent that I can show that it makes a genuine effort to be conceived a posteriori, unlike either Bentham's or Singer's ethics, which rely on assumptions with no real empirical basis. I probably will not be able to justify it against any others that have different attempts at conception a posteriori. I can simply show that my approach is definitely one empirical approach that has been worked out to a high degree of consistency. But given that the search for an empirically based theory of ethics is an unusual thing for a philosopher to do in the first place, I'm not really very worried about it!

Notes


1Cf. "The experience-dependence of intuitions".
2Cf. "The use of farfetched examples".
3Cf. "The use of trivial examples - update 1".
4Cf. "Moral experimentation as praxis".

Popular posts from this blog

The Philosophy of Al Qaeda

People out there seem pretty interested in the philosophy of Al Qaeda. Three of my most recent hits have involved searches on those words. Mine is the top-ranked page when "Al-Qaeda" is spelled with a hyphen, and the second-ranked page when it is not. And my page was only referring to someone else's blog page in the first place! So let's talk about the philosophy of Al Qaeda. Paul Berman wrote an excellent article about it. He identifies Sayyid Qutb as the most important philosopher behind the movement. Qutb is Qaeda's intellectual hero, its "Karl Marx". In this respect, Qutb's best known work is Milestones , his Das Kapital . Berman, however, calls attention to Qutb's deeper work, the enormous In the Shade of the Koran . It is full of literary beauty and deep ideas. Just because ideas are deep, however, does not mean that they are true, and many of Qutb's ideas, Berman argues, are indeed false. Qutb opposes the separation of church and s
Read more

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

Do you see any conflict between your spending considerable money on the care of your mother and your principle of spreading out wealth to help the most people? Yes. In a sense, my spending money on my mother's care is in conflict with that principle. But so is the fact that I flew back to Australia to visit my daughters at Christmas. That money could also be better spent elsewhere. I've never claimed that I live my life perfectly in accordance with those principles of sharing my money as much as I should. Interview with Peter Singer by Princeton Alumni Weekly , January 26, 2000. Is Peter Singer a hypocrite? Lonnie Lee Best, from his excellent web page on " The Psychology of Hypocrisy ", defines a hypocrite as 'a person whose actions contradict his or her stated or internal beliefs. (Or vice versa.)' From the sections on " Singer's Mother " and " Singer's Donations ", it seems clear enough that Singer falls into this cat
Read more

Commensurability 5.0

Key concept: commensurability Dictionary Definition: measurability by a common standard (Based on definition of "commensurable" in WordNet 2.0 .) Substantive Account: of a claim, measurability of its truth or falsity by a common standard that falls along a continuum of degrees, or levels , of conduciveness to non-coercive agreement. I distinguish the following four levels: Level 1 Keyword: Commonality. UPDATE 2014/12/28: Could also be triviality. Necessary and sufficient condition: Pre-existing agreement about truth or falsity of claim. Examples: "The Pope is Catholic" is at level 1 because of pre-existing agreement of its truth. "The moon is made of green cheese" is at level 1 because of pre-existing agreement of its falsity. Additionally, non-trivial claims can be at level 1 relative to a particular discussion. For example, assumptions made in a scientific paradigm are at level 1 relative to all who share that paradigm. Level 2 Keywor
Read more