Keyboard Shortcuts?f

×
  • →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

 

Time to Abandon Ethics?

I want to start by putting together three key things that we learned ...
What follows from these for understanding the limits of humans’ ethical knowledge

limits of humans’ ethical knowledge

MFQ-2 : there is moral pluralism (within culture), and cultural variation

MFT anthropology: foundations are for solving problems

dual-process theory: fast processes are unreliable outside familiar* situations

What, if anything, do these main findings tell us about the limits of humans’ ethical knowledge?

reflective equilibrium?

Can we do ethics without not-justified-inferentially premises?

consequentialism? ... contractualism? ...?

My own sense is that consequentialism and the rest are all interesting ideas to think about as far as they go, but that they each radically underestimate the complexity of the problem. (Think about purity as a way of dealing with pathogens.)
The isms, as far as I understand them, are also revisionary given that moral pluralism is true. This is not in itself a problem, but it would be good to have some explanation for why they are so revisionary.
Finally there is also the problem that philosophers have developed a large number of views and disagree about which is correct. No way for an outsider to settle the debate.
Ok we need another way ...

financial ethical bets

In the financial domain, we have many theories and much conflicting evidence. Traders also have a pressing need to act. They will not usually make money by attempting first to identify the correct theory and then sticking to that. They will probably instead combine approaches that are inspired by a mix of evidence and theory.

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)

Primary consideration: the upside of being right about the ethics outweighs the downside of being wrong (will not do great harm even if we are wrong)
Other consideration: Pogge argues that you can justify a positive answer from a wide range of philosophical views, including libertarianism (which is typically a view opposed to redistribution because it emphasizes property rights)

... and humility

We also have to recognize that there is a lot we do not know.
This is going to be very hard given that many of us have quite strong ethical views in some areas. The strong views may concern environmental issues, identity and self-expression, social justice, or sexuality.
The important thing is to try to include everyone, all of the human beings, as moral agents with their .