 |
| Topic: |
| Audio: |
|
 |
Download
the Episode |
 |
Listen
Online
(Download Real
Player) |
| Guest: |

Alex Miller, Professor, University of Birmingham
|
| What
is it? |
School
teachers, preachers, parents, and even a few philosophers often claim
to be authorities on the dictates of morality. But where does
morality really come from? From society’s customs? From
God’s commandments? From the cold, impersonal commandments of
pure reason? Or from human emotions and
sentiments? Join John as Ken as they
explore the
meaning and origins of morality.
|
About
the Guest
Alex
Miller is a Professor of Philosophy at University of Birmingham, and
works primarily in the fields of philosophy of language and mind,
metaethics and metaphysics. He is also the author of An Introduction to
Contemporary Metaethics, which was selected as an
"Outstanding Academic
Title" in 2005 by CHOICE magazine.
Listening
Notes
John
begins by asking Ken where morality can possibly originate, and Ken
describes one of the most common theories of morality: what God says is
right is right, and what God says is wrong is wrong. John relates this
to one of Plato's early dialogues, and wonders whether what is right is
right because God makes it right, or because God recognizes that there
is something about it that makes it right? Ken suggests that social
conventions and human psychology could be an alternative origin for
morality, but John points out that the same paradox applies: does
society cause certain actions to be right or wrong, or does it just
recognize the right-ness or wrong-ness of actions? Of course, sometimes
societies are wrong, they justify slavery and allow the mistreatment of
women, and this creates a whole new set of problems for John and Ken,
who ultimately conclude that moral relativism has serious flaws, and
these injustices are truly wrong. But this insistence on absolute moral
truths brings them back to the original question!
In order to
help them along, Ken introduces Alex Miller, Professor of Philosophy at
the University of Birmingham, and author of An Introduction to
Contemporary Metaethics, and excellent introductory text on the
subject. John begins by asking Alex what it says about morality that
people are constantly arguing about its nature and origins. Alex thinks
this might show that there is not really a fact of the matter
concerning morality, just like an opinion about the tastiest ice cream
is subjective, so too ideas about morality might not be based on any
fact of the matter. On the other hand, Alex also suggests all the
disagreement might indicate that morality is really a very complex
issue that requires the consideration of many different disciplines and
factors to resolve--maybe there is a fact of the matter but it just
can't be found easily from the armchair! John, Ken, and Alex all agree
that the second possibility is more likely, and the great variety of
moral disagreements are indicative of the very difficult nature of the
subject. John points out that there are some moral questions which are
easy to agree on, are these possibly universal, or are they just easy?
Alex thinks moral agreement can be even more confusing than
disagreement, because the same moral principle can be justified in many
ways. Is one justification more apt or correct than another? Does the
justification matter, or is only the conclusion important?
Even
though Alex proclaims he has no worked out moral theory of his own, Ken
asks him if deep down he thinks there are objective moral truths, and
if he had to justify them what he might argue. Alex relates his
position to the great philosopher Bertrand Russell, who could not argue
for objective moral truths, but realized as soon as he thought
un-philosophically that there were obviously moral right and wrongs in
the real world. Alex thinks that ultimately moral truths are related to
the actions and the consequences of these actions that they support.
John compares Alex's view to Hume and Kant, and wonders: what is more
important, feelings about actions or the effects they really have in
the world? Ken tries to describe the difference between morality and
ethics, and then tries to cast morality in terms of approval and
disapproval, is there really anything more to morality than just social
agreement and disagreement on what it is right to do? This leads the
discussion towards the connection between moral judgments and moral
actions--we all know those who make a lot of moral judgments but do not
act on them, or do not live by them themselves.
John, Ken, and
Alex continue to take calls and emails concerning the status of moral
truths, how to recognize a moral truth if you stumble upon one, and
whether or not the origins of moral truths are justified as long as
they ultimately lead to positive actions.
- The
Roving Philosophical Reporter
(Seek to 3:43): The Roving Philosophical Reporter travels to downtown
San Francisco to ask the average person what they think morality is,
and where it comes from.
- Ian
Schoales the Sixty Second Philosopher
(Seek to 48:56): Ian Schoales discusses the connection between
morality, Flaubert, propriety, and the bourgeoisie at lightning speed.
Additional
Resources
Encyclopedia Links
General Links
Books
|
|