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.


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.
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.
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.
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".
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
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?
Martin said…
No Kosh3, for that to be true you would have to be both a cultural imperialist and a timelord.
Kosh3 said…
I wouldn't need to be a 'timelord'.

Popular posts from this blog


(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

What is Humanism?

What is Humanism? “Humanism” is a word that has had and continues to have a number of meanings. The focus here is on kind of atheistic world-view espoused by those who organize and campaign under that banner in the UK and abroad. We should acknowledge that there remain other uses of term. In one of the loosest senses of the expression, a “Humanist” is someone whose world-view gives special importance to human concerns, values and dignity. If that is what a Humanist is, then of course most of us qualify as Humanists, including many religious theists. But the fact remains that, around the world, those who organize under the label “Humanism” tend to sign up to a narrower, atheistic view. What does Humanism, understood in this narrower way, involve? The boundaries of the concept remain somewhat vague and ambiguous. However, most of those who organize under the banner of Humanism would accept the following minimal seven-point characterization of their world-view.

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o