The Nature of Ethical Disagreement PDF Download

Author:
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages :

View

Book Description

Author: Brian Alan Rockwood
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Electronic dissertations
Languages : en
Pages :

View

Book Description
In this dissertation I draw upon Donald Davidson's theories of language and the mental in order to argue that it is impossible for an agent to hold ethical beliefs that are, when taken as a whole, radically different than one's own. This argument starts with Davidson's theory that beliefs, desires and other mental objects are theoretical entities that are attributed to speakers in order to make sense of their intentional actions. These attributions must be made in accordance with the principle of charity and, as such, it is impossible for an agent to have a set of beliefs and desires that are radically different from those of the interpreter. The trick is to show that there are limitations on how much disagreement is possible with a subset of the speaker's beliefs. In order to do this I stress the importance of holism within Davidson's theory of meaning. One result of his holism is that a belief gets its content from its connections to other beliefs in the belief net. Hence, changes in one belief create a ripple effect which changes the contents of related beliefs. Because of this effect, in order for two people to have the same belief they must have similar beliefs throughout their belief nets local to that belief. When combined with an argument about the interrelated nature of ethical beliefs we can conclude that in order for a speaker to hold any ethical belief they must share a number of ethical beliefs with the interpreter. What this does not illuminate is how much agreement is necessary. In order to get a handle on this I turned to the arguments presented in Philippa Foot's â€Moral Beliefs†and Bernard Williams' â€The Truth in Relativism.†I argue that the eccentric that Foot presents is an example of a speaker who attempts to present a theory of ethics that is simply too different to be considered an ethical theory. Finally, I consider the distinction Williams' makes between real confrontation and notational confrontation as a possible guideline for where real ethical disagreement begins to break apart.

Author: Casey Rebecca Johnson
Publisher: Routledge
ISBN: 1351721569
Category : Philosophy
Languages : en
Pages : 325

View

Book Description
Disagreement is, for better or worse, pervasive in our society. Not only do we form beliefs that differ from those around us, but increasingly we have platforms and opportunities to voice those disagreements and make them public. In light of the public nature of many of our most important disagreements, a key question emerges: How does public disagreement affect what we know? This volume collects original essays from a number of prominent scholars—including Catherine Elgin, Sanford Goldberg, Jennifer Lackey, Michael Patrick Lynch, and Duncan Pritchard, among others—to address this question in its diverse forms. The book is organized by thematic sections, in which individual chapters address the epistemic, ethical, and political dimensions of dissent. The individual contributions address important issues such as the value of disagreement, the nature of conversational disagreement, when dissent is epistemically rational, when one is obligated to voice disagreement or to object, the relation of silence and resistance to dissent, and when political dissent is justified. Voicing Dissent offers a new approach to the study of disagreement that will appeal to social epistemologists and ethicists interested in this growing area of epistemology.

Author: Dominic Wilkinson
Publisher: Elsevier Health Sciences
ISBN: 0702077828
Category : Medical
Languages : en
Pages : 192

View

Book Description
What should happen when doctors and parents disagree about what would be best for a child? When should courts become involved? Should life support be stopped against parents’ wishes? The case of Charlie Gard, reached global attention in 2017. It led to widespread debate about the ethics of disagreements between doctors and parents, about the place of the law in such disputes, and about the variation in approach between different parts of the world. In this book, medical ethicists Dominic Wilkinson and Julian Savulescu critically examine the ethical questions at the heart of disputes about medical treatment for children. They use the Gard case as a springboard to a wider discussion about the rights of parents, the harms of treatment, and the vital issue of limited resources. They discuss other prominent UK and international cases of disagreement and conflict. From opposite sides of the debate Wilkinson and Savulescu provocatively outline the strongest arguments in favour of and against treatment. They analyse some of the distinctive and challenging features of treatment disputes in the 21st century and argue that disagreement about controversial ethical questions is both inevitable and desirable. They outline a series of lessons from the Gard case and propose a radical new ‘dissensus’ framework for future cases of disagreement. This new book critically examines the core ethical questions at the heart of disputes about medical treatment for children. The contents review prominent cases of disagreement from the UK and internationally and analyse some of the distinctive and challenging features around treatment disputes in the 21st century. The book proposes a radical new framework for future cases of disagreement around the care of gravely ill people.

Author: James Rachels
Publisher:
ISBN: 9780198751922
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 260

View

Book Description

Author: Folke Tersman
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
ISBN: 9780521853385
Category : Philosophy
Languages : en
Pages : 172

View

Book Description
Folke Tersman explores the nature of moral thinking by examining moral disagreement.

Author: Christopher W. Gowans
Publisher: Routledge
ISBN: 1134604564
Category : Philosophy
Languages : en
Pages : 278

View

Book Description
Can moral disagreements be rationally resolved? Can universal human rights be defended in face of moral disagreements? The problem of moral disagreement is one of the central problems in moral thinking. It also provides a stimulating stepping-stone to some of the perennial problems of philosophy, such as relativism, scepticism, and objectivity. Moral Disagreements is the first anthology to bring together classic and contemporary readings on this key topic. Clearly divided into five parts; The Historical Debate; Voices from Anthropology; Challenges to Moral Objectivity; Defenses of Moral Objectivity; and New Directions, the anthology presents readings from the following key thinkers: * Sextus, Empiricus, Chagnon, Wong, MacIntyre * Aquinas, Shweder, Brink, Rawls * Montaigne, Turner, Nussbaum, Narayan * Hume, Mackie, Gewirth * Nietzsche, Williams, Berlin. A distinctive feature of the anthology is that it brings philosophers into dialogue with well-known anthropologists. Also included is a comprehensive introduction by Christopher Gowans, introducing the problem of moral disagreement to those coming to the topic for the first time.

Author: Henry John McCloskey
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Ethics
Languages : en
Pages : 290

View

Book Description

Author: David B Wong
Publisher: Oxford University Press
ISBN: 0199724849
Category : Philosophy
Languages : en
Pages : 312

View

Book Description
In this book, David B. Wong defends an ambitious and important new version of moral relativism. He does not espouse the type of relativism that says anything goes, but he does start with a relativist stance against alternative theories such that there need not be only one universal truth. Wong proposes that there can be a plurality of true moralities existing across different traditions and cultures, all with one core human question as to how we can all live together.

Author: Marvin T. Brown
Publisher: Pearson
ISBN:
Category : Business & Economics
Languages : en
Pages : 100

View

Book Description
This hands-on workbook helps learners develop conceptual tools and argumentative strategies to move beyond merely having opinions.