Moral Skepticism - Philippa Foot (1970)

[@mattvrabel2072]

Very good to hear her talk

[@guldenaydin9918]

Şahane bir diyalek... Tek, tek her "kelimeyi", neredeyse her harfi anlıyoruz...İngilizce'nin harikulade kullanımı... Çok teşekkŭr ederim. Saygı duygumla.

[@syedadeelhussain2691]

Turk?

[@themiddlevoice]

Thank you! This is really special.

[@cracklingsoda]

Thank you for the video.

[@fawadahmad2674]

Thank you for sharing

[@matthewglenguir7204]

Weird that I don't hear many talk about her

[@syedadeelhussain2691]

Must read Hume before listening to this lecture.

[@SuperFinGuy]

She discusses Hume's ideas, namely the supposed gap between evaluation and description.

[@syedadeelhussain2691]

@@SuperFinGuy must have gone unnoticed.

[@eraserhead-prime]

30:00 The story about American tv is hilarious

[@DracoFrmTokyo]

MY GOAT MY GOAT MY GOAT

[@ruskiny280]

The greatest good of the greatest number is the way to go. Love is the answer.

[@exalted_kitharode]

So she just begs the question against non-naturalists? Why would links to human harm and benefit be relevant for morality at all? It seems natural, but I'm afraid appellation to human goods at bottom would need completely analogous maneuver as that of non-naturalist's, that human good is just The Right thing to pursue. If it's not, then we basically give moral skeptic all he wants.

[@sanfordsanford295]

It seems morality needs to be linked to some sort of objective measure if it has any real substance That's the crux of the problem, Qualities of 'Right' and 'wrong' don't correspond to any objective measurement it's purely a matter of individual human judgement

[@SuperFinGuy]

@@sanfordsanford295 Ok if there is no objective measurement for morality, then go play in traffic or start harming others and see what happens. It's a contradiction to act in a way that is self-defeating or that you wouldn't allow others to do the same.

[@nektariosbreyannis576]

​​​​@@SuperFinGuy Contradictory to what? You may very well have a "moral code" that says you can do whatever you want (egoism). You don't need objective morality in order to "punish" someone for a damage that she did to you. You need just the empirical, objective facts, not the supposedely "oughts" or "ought nots". You live by default in the "state of nature", unless you arrive to some kind of agreement with your fellow "moral" agents.

[@exalted_kitharode]

@@sanfordsanford295 well if it is, it doesn't mean you can connect it to any objective measure whatsoever. Whether it's time to kill you or not doesn't depend on oddness of the number of my previous partners, while it is very well objective fact, is this number odd or not. So too are naturalist's proposals for objective measurement of morality - just irrelevant (or so non-naturalist argues).

[@SuperFinGuy]

@@nektariosbreyannis576 Contradictory to your own nature as a human being of course. Contradictory to your well-being as such. Sure you can have your arbitrary moral rules but the point is - what are their consequences. Having reason and principles is what separates us from animals. Not having "oughts" or "ought nots" is not thinking, description alone won't tell you what to do. It's funny you're still telling me what I ought to do.

[@bryanutility9609]

Could she just get to the point so wordy

[@stellathorne8214]

You've obviously never read any papers in philosophy. Pathetic idiotic peasant.

[@theevilsandwitch8520]

Brits :(

[@thomasweir2834]

The 70’s was a very wordy decade.

[@bryanutility9609]

@@stellathorne8214 Sounds like word salad. “Might makes right” there I fixed it for you

[@newtonswig]

I thought it was a masterful and subtle marshalling of carefully chosen examples. She’s trying to carefully describe the landscape of evaluative judgements, so that you can see how unusual emotivism is as a position. I don’t think she could have done it less wordily. Very English way of talking, though, I suppose.