Edmonds and Warburton: Philosophy Bites Again
Edmonds and Warburton: Philosophy Bites
Edmonds and Warburton: Philosophy Bites Back
Your email address:Powered by FeedBlitz
« Peter Singer on the Life You Can Save |
| Cynthia Freeland on Portraits »
Some philosophers believe in doing experiments in philosophy. Joshua Knobe is one of these. In this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast David Edmonds interviews him about this new movement.
Listen to Joshua Knobe on Experimental Philosophy
Posted at 11:10 PM in Experimental Philosophy, X-Phi | Permalink
I wonder, perhaps, if there is not a possible slight flaw in the example used of the Chairman. In each case the question being asked is a moral one about a specific statement, that is, if the Chairman is deliberating harming or helping the environment. But in each case is it not also true that the Chairman makes an inferred statement that greed is more important to him / her than anything / everything else. (I don't care about the environment; I just want to make money.) Thus someone making a moral judgement will likely also take this into account. (Since we tend to make a moral judgement about a person using all facts to hand even when asked a question that only relates to one part.) Both answering yes to deliberately harming the environment, and answering no to deliberately helping the environment are both in fact negative endorsements of the Chairman's actions. Or, if you like, a negative endorsement of greed. So maybe our moral judgement hasn't changed. Switching the questions order so that the helpful act is first so that it might be assumed a person might recognise the "trap" being laid out so answer no to both questions (as a philosopher might) will be negated because it doesn't address the issue of greed. So a person answering the question in only a moral way would still answer in the same way (no to help, yes to harm). I wonder if there has been further tests using a positive reinforcement of the Chairman rather than a negative one. For instance there is a Chairman of a pharmaceutical company, and one day the chief drug designer comes in and says that they have made a great new drug that will cure all the illness in the world, but it will be massively harmful to the environment (or perhaps harmful to world food resources because a particular type of plant is needed in such huge quantities that a lot of farmland would have to be given over to it's production). The Chairman says I don't care about the environment; I just want to help cure the sick. I wonder if there would be the same type of answers then.
Col Ventura |
February 09, 2012 at 08:30 PM
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.
(URLs automatically linked.)
(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)
Name is required to post a comment
Please enter a valid email address
Nigel Warburton: Philosophy: The Basics
Nigel Warburton: A Little History of Philosophy
Nigel Warburton: Free Speech: A Very Short Introduction
Nigel Warburton: The Basics of Essay Writing
Nigel Warburton: Thinking from A to Z
Nigel Warburton: Erno Goldfinger: The Life of an Architect
Nigel Warburton: Philosophy: The Essential Study Guide
Nigel Warburton: The Art Question
Nigel Warburton: Freedom: An Introduction with Readings
Nigel Warburton: Philosophy: The Classics
David Edmonds: Would You Kill the Fat Man?
David Edmonds: Caste Wars: The Philosophy of Discrimination
David Edmonds and John Eidinow: Rousseau's Dog: A Tale of Two Philosophers
David Edmonds and John Eidinow: Bobby Fischer Goes to War
David Edmonds and John Eidinow: Wittgenstein's Poker