Skip to main content

Morality Podcast

Janet Radcliffe Richards looks at a fascinating range of new experiments shedding light on how humans make moral choices.

Go here.

Have not listened to it yet but JRR is always exceptionally good.

Comments

Sam Charles Norton said…
It was from JRR's "sceptical feminist" that I first became critical of the use of 'natural' - and therefore 'supernatural' - in arguments. I agree that she is exceptionally good.
July 2, 2009 at 4:44 PM
theObserver said…
She wrote the study block "Human nature after Darwin" that I studied as part of my open unversity philosophy course. Must listen to the podcast when I get a chance.
July 2, 2009 at 8:29 PM
Paul P. Mealing said…
I have to admit I'd never heard of Janet Radcliffe Richards, but it's a good podcast: provocative and illuminating.

Her comments on homosexuality and euthanasia, I thought, were particularly cogent.

Regards, Paul.
July 3, 2009 at 4:13 AM
Martin said…
I studied philosophy at university because I was fascinated by what ethics were. I left completely baffled. In other times and other places very different standards of what is and isn't acceptable apply. Only a cultural imperialist would imply their standards were "the best".

I'm glad I listened to this as it's the most convincing explanation I've ever heard about how we humans come to regard such a jumble of behaviours as "ethical".
July 3, 2009 at 1:33 PM
wombat said…
OT (but since you are in a very multimedia sort of theme at the moment Stephen maybe excusable) Channel 4 are showing another episode of "Revelations" on Sunday 05 July, 7PM

Muslim School traces the lives of two girls from very different backgrounds in their first year at a Muslim faith school.

FWIW the last one on the Alpha course was pretty superficial so my expectations of this aren't that high but you never know.

C4 page here
July 3, 2009 at 10:01 PM
Kosh3 said…
"Only a cultural imperialist would imply their standards were "the best"."

Why? Does the same hold true for claims that my standards are 'better'?

For example, I think my ethical standards are better than a)Roman popular ethics, b) Mongolian warlord ethics, etc. Am I a 'cultural imperialist'? Or is everyone's ethical standards all the same - all on an even footing?
July 3, 2009 at 11:44 PM
Martin said…
No Kosh3, for that to be true you would have to be both a cultural imperialist and a timelord.
July 4, 2009 at 11:19 PM
Kosh3 said…
I wouldn't need to be a 'timelord'.
July 5, 2009 at 12:01 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen...
159 comments
Read more

The Evil God Challenge and the "classical" theist's response

On another blog, FideCogitActio, some theists of a "classical" stripe (that's to say, like Brian Davies, Edward Feser) are criticisng the Evil God Challenge (or I suppose, trying to show how it can be met, or sidestepped). The main post includes this: In book I, chapter 39 , Aquinas argues that “there cannot be evil in God” (in Deo non potest esse malum). Atheists like Law must face the fact that, if the words are to retain any sense, “God” simply cannot be “evil”. As my comments in the thread at Feser’s blog aimed to show, despite how much he mocks “the privation theory of evil,” Law himself cannot escape its logic: his entire argument requires that the world ought to appear less evil if it is to be taken as evidence of a good God. Even though he spurns the idea that evil is a privation of good, his account of an evil world is parasitic on a good ideal; this is no surprise, though, since all evil is parasitic on good ( SCG I, 11 ). Based on the conclusions of se...
446 comments
Read more

Sye show continues

I was sent a link to this , for those interested in the never ending saga of Sye TenBruggencate and his "proof" of the existence of God. Hit "sinner ministries' proof of the existence of god" link below or on side bar for 30+ earlier posts on this topic that I wrote during an extended interchange with him last summer (check the literally many hundreds of comments attached to these posts if you really want to get into how Sye thinks and argues). Sye's amazing intial "proof" is available here . PS. For those interested, my own "presuppositional" proof, parodying Sye's proof by his principle "the impossibility of the contrary" (which turns out to be the key to Sye's proof) is: My claim: Sye's mind is addled and his thinking unreliable because he was hit on the head by a rock. Prove this is false, Sye. Try to, and I will say - "But your "proof" presupposes your mind is not addled and you can recognise a pr...
250 comments
Read more