Is a Public Philosophy Still Possible?

[Hume]

Liberal-egalitarians will find an ally in Socrates. For one thing, he is inclusive: the gadfly piques everyone. Sure, Socrates is in your face. But he doesn’t force you to change. Nor does he pour wisdom into your head. As an intellectual “midwife” he wants to help you give birth to your own ideas, making sure that they are founded in reason. This might still be too much for the complacent or the self-righteous. But it certainly fits nicely with John Stuart Mill’s brand of liberalism, for example, that champions critical thinking and vigorous debate.

Who would not rally behind public philosophy if it could steer us to an examined life steeped in virtue and wisdom?

Is a Public Philosophy Still Possible?

Are we living in a “golden age” of public philosophy, as some claim? There sure is a lot of it, as magazines, blogs, podcasts, and Substack newsletters proliferate. Even the New York Times ran a philosophy column for over a decade in which philosophers shared their thoughts on issues “timely and...

libertiesjournal.com

 

[Cypress]

The Socrates of the Platonic dialogues believed that there was an objectively true and ideal version of virtue and morality that existed above and independent from human opinion. That is the basic gist of the Platonic forms.

I've never seen an atheist, a cynic, a skeptic, a relativist say that there is moral code and framework of virtue that is objectively true and universal independent of human opinion, popular vote, popular whim or custom.

I would think Protagoras would be the hero of atheists, because he famously said that 'man is the measure of all things'

 

[Hume]

The Socrates of the Platonic dialogues believed that there was an objectively true and ideal version of virtue and morality that existed above and independent from human opinion. That is the basic gist of the Platonic forms.

I've never seen an atheist, a cynic, a skeptic, a relativist say that there is moral code and framework of virtue that is objectively true and universal independent of human opinion, popular vote, popular whim or custom.

I would think Protagoras would be the hero of atheists, because he famously said that 'man is the measure of all things'

Some day you should read Aristotle. Refutes Plato. And he is correct.

Ethics is just the way people agree to live with each other.

 

[Hume]

The Socrates of the Platonic dialogues believed that there was an objectively true and ideal version of virtue and morality that existed above and independent from human opinion. That is the basic gist of the Platonic forms.

I've never seen an atheist, a cynic, a skeptic, a relativist say that there is moral code and framework of virtue that is objectively true and universal independent of human opinion, popular vote, popular whim or custom.

I would think Protagoras would be the hero of atheists, because he famously said that 'man is the measure of all things'

Here are three ethical systems philosophers discuss:

Deontology: Ethical in itself. Kantian.
Utilitarian: Consequence of action. Usefulness.
Virtue: List of virtues. Aristotelian.

You are arguing for deontology.

 

[Cypress]

Some day you should read Aristotle. Refutes Plato. And he is correct.

Ethics is just the way people agree to live with each other.

I've read some Aristotle and Plato.

You run your mouth about quantum mechanics, but you've never read the original scientific papers by Schrodinger and Bohr.

You should read and try to understand the Allegory of the Cave, which is one of the most famous chapters in the Socratic dialogues. Humans are prisoners of illusion and opinion, and they cannot see the objectively real good and true.

Glad you wrote that ethics is just something that comes from opinion and popular vote. Because that's the kind of Sophist argument people like Socrates and Plato were vehemently against. The whole rational behind the Platonic forms is that there is a universal and objectively true reality beyond human opinion which Plato called the Good.

 

[Hume]

I've read some Aristotle and Plato.

You run your mouth about quantum mechanics, but you've never read the original scientific papers by Schrodinger and Bohr.

You should read and try to understand the Allegory of the Cave, which is one of the most famous chapters in the Socratic dialogues. Humans are prisoners of illusion and opinion, and they cannot see the objectively real good and true.

Glad you wrote that ethics is just something that comes from opinion and popular vote. Because that's the kind of Sophist argument people like Socrates and Plato were vehemently against. The whole rational behind the Platonic forms is that there is a universal and objectively true reality beyond human opinion which Plato called the Good.

I don't read past insults. Tired of you.

 

[Cypress]

I don't read past insults. Tired of you.

So you never actually understood why Plato/Socrates were vehemently opposed the Sophist argument that all human values and ethics were just a matter of opinion, the popular vote, the popular whim.

 

[Hume]

So you never actually understood why Plato/Socrates were vehemently opposed the Sophist argument that all human values and ethics were just a matter of opinion, the popular vote, the popular whim.

I understand Plato. I do not agree. Aristotle did not agree. Most current philosophers do not agree.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Some day you should read Aristotle. Refutes Plato. And he is correct.

Ethics is just the way people agree to live with each other.

This is wrong. There are universals in terms of morality, starting with murder is wrong.

 

[Hume]

This is wrong. There are universals in terms of morality, starting with murder is wrong.

Show me that universal. Are you referring to the Bible?

 

[Hume]

This is wrong. There are universals in terms of morality, starting with murder is wrong.

Okay. Is it murder when you invade a foreign country? No? Why not?
Is it murder if you kill someone who attacks you? Why not?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Show me that universal. Are you referring to the Bible?

I'm referring to the FACT that you can't find a single human society anywhere in history that found murdering someone morally acceptable.

 

[Hume]

I'm referring to the FACT that you can't find a single human society anywhere in history that found murdering someone morally acceptable.

How do you define "murder?"

 

[T. A. Gardner]

How do you define "murder?"

The unlawful killing of another human.

 

[Hume]

The unlawful killing of another human.

So, every society has laws.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

So, every society has laws.

Yes. There are rules (aka laws) in any society, whether they are written or unwritten. Everybody understands the rules. There is no society ever that practiced individualist anarchy.

 

[Obtenebrator]

This is wrong. There are universals in terms of morality, starting with murder is wrong.

There are examples of well-fed housecats still killing songbirds. There are stories of adult male lions killing the offspring of other lions. Same with polar bears.

Since no one in their right mind would suggest these cases of murder (by definition) are "immoral", it thus calls into question the universality of said moral "universal".

 

[T. A. Gardner]

There are examples of well-fed housecats still killing songbirds. There are stories of adult male lions killing the offspring of other lions. Same with polar bears.

Since no one in their right mind would suggest these cases of murder (by definition) are "immoral", it thus calls into question the universality of said moral "universal".

Animals are not humans. You are giving an Affirming the consequent fallacy there. Or, is it your contention that humans should act no different or better than animals in general?

 

[Obtenebrator]

Animals are not humans.

But humans are animals. Ergo if there is any "universality" to moral ideas then it should apply UNIVERSALLY. (See that word? Yeah)

You are giving an Affirming the consequent fallacy there. Or, is it your contention that humans should act no different or better than animals in general?

I am saying that unless you think the lion is acting immorally in murdering offspring of other lions then there is no "universal" moral absolute.

It's not really an affirmation of the consequent fallacy here. You made the claim that murder is a UNIVERSAL moral idea. It is "wrong". Which means it must be wrong for all.

If it is only wrong for SOME then it is NOT universal.

Words do have meanings.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

But humans are animals. Ergo if there is any "universality" to moral ideas then it should apply UNIVERSALLY. (See that word? Yeah)



I am saying that unless you think the lion is acting immorally in murdering offspring of other lions then there is no "universal" moral absolute.

It's not really an affirmation of the consequent fallacy here. You made the claim that murder is a UNIVERSAL moral idea. It is "wrong". Which means it must be wrong for all.

If it is only wrong for SOME then it is NOT universal.

Words do have meanings.

You are just making the same logical fallacy over again.

This time you add a reductio ad absurdum fallacy to it.

What is universal to humans does not have to be universal to all animals. We are discussing humans, not all animals, or even not all life.

In effect, you are making the reverse argument that the animal rights movement makes.