Wilfrid Sellars (1966) Science & Ethics: A Study in First Principles

[@Khuno2]

Spectacular! Thank you

[@brnoza298]

Great lecture.. thank you for uploading.

[@thehairblairbunchjones6209]

Is it just me or does Sellars end up accepting the very virtue ethics he says he rejects earlier on in the lecture? Maybe the difference is that he’s not saying that specific moral judgments are made by reference to individual flourishing, but only that considerations of individual flourishing justify adopting the moral point of view in the first place. But then I’m not sure Plato or Aristotle would disagree with that. I don’t think they would say that an act of generosity should be performed on the basis that it is conducive to the flourishing of who performs it, but that the tendency to do it for its own sake is conducive to that person’s flourishing and is therefore part of a good life.

[@Philosophy_Overdose]

When did he reject virtue ethics? I don't remember him mentioning virtue ethics here at all...

[@thehairblairbunchjones6209]

@@Philosophy_Overdose when he talks about Plato conceiving of morality as being part of the happy life. He objects that even if morality and happiness coincide they are still distinct since happiness is a self-regarding concern and morality is other-regarding. But at the end he goes on to say that when asked why care about the moral point of view, we can say that adopting it is necessary for a happy life. But this seems closer to what I think was intended by the conception of moralistic as a facet of eudaimonia in the tradition discussed earlier.

[@thehairblairbunchjones6209]

It seems closer to it than the characterisation he gives when giving his reasons for rejecting Plato’s view, that is.

[@GolumTR]

@@thehairblairbunchjones6209 The dialectic he follows the meaning of the words “happy life” moved (as Socrates said all important words do). In his summary of Plato, “happy life” meant ‘a life of stable, low uncertainty pleasure’ but in his summary of Kant he let it mean ‘a life where I am respected as an “I”’. I agree his summary of Plato is a little hostile - it’s called Politeia not Sophrysyne - but it’s been 25 centuries of people motivating their moral philosophy by questionable interpretations of Politeia. At some point you gotta let that ship sail.

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

Is the happiness of man to be identified with moral goodness ? If not, then we might say so much the worse for moral goodness because most men desire their own happiness above all else. But what of those brave men and women who sacrifice their own happiness and lives for others -- the heroes and martyrs ? I am thinking here not only of soldiers who have sacrificed themselves defending our country and freedom, but those who rescue others from death only to lose their own life in the process -- say, a first-responder on 9/11 who died when the twin towers collapsed on them. Are these people not the epitome of moral action ? So, what then are we to talking about, the utilitarian principle of 'the greatest happiness for the greatest number' ? Is this utilitarian principle the ultimate moral principle ? If so, then is ethics nothing more than the application of the science of human happiness ? How violently would some critic like Nietzsche disagree with this conclusion ? What matters if the masses are satisfied ? For man is something to be overcome, and what is truly good is not human happiness, but the will-to-power that finds its fullest expression in human ambition, strength, and genius -- in conquest and domination, in subjugating the lowly masses, and in transcending the common mores, weakness and humanity of the herd ! To build the future for the Overman through will-to-power, according to Nietzsche, is what is truly good. Does not a moral philosophy first have to settle the dispute between those who claim the moral good is human happiness and those who disagree, claiming it to be something else -- such as the will-to-power, the Will of God, or simply the Good itself ?

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

Moral principles have a purpose, do they not ? In other words, 'ought' alone doesn't make for a moral principle. 'You ought to take the freeway instead of the city streets to get to the other side of town quicker' doesn't appear to be a moral principle, but simply advice on how to get to a destination faster. No 'ought' statement expresses a moral principle unless the ultimate purpose of the 'ought' is the moral good itself. What is the moral good ? Now, you are doing moral philosophy.