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

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

Why I won't be voting Labour at the next General Election, not even to 'keep the Tories out'.

I have always voted Labour, and have often been a member of the Party, campaigning and canvassing for them. For what it’s worth, here’s my feeling about voting Labour next General Election:   1. When the left vote Labour after they move rightwards, they are encouraged to just move further right, to the point where they are now probably right of where e.g. John Major’s Tory party was. And each time the Tories go further right still. At some point we have got to stop fuelling this toxic drift to the right by making the Labour Party realise that it’s going to start costing them votes. I can’t think of anything politically more important than halting this increasingly frightening rightward slide. So I am no longer voting Labour. 2. If a new socialist party starts up, it could easily hoover up many of the 200k former LP members who have left in disgust (I’d join), and perhaps also pick up union affiliations. They could become the second biggest party by membership quite quickly. Our voting

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

Aquinas on homosexuality

Thought I would try a bit of a draft out on the blog, for feedback. All comments gratefully received. No doubt I've got at least some details wrong re the Catholic Church's position... AQUINAS AND SEXUAL ETHICS Aquinas’s thinking remains hugely influential within the Catholic Church. In particular, his ideas concerning sexual ethics still heavily shape Church teaching. It is on these ideas that we focus here. In particular, I will look at Aquinas’s justification for morally condemning homosexual acts. When homosexuality is judged to be morally wrong, the justification offered is often that homosexuality is, in some sense, “unnatural”. Aquinas develops a sophisticated version of this sort of argument. The roots of the argument lie in thinking of Aristotle, whom Aquinas believes to be scientifically authoritative. Indeed, one of Aquinas’s over-arching aims was to show how Aristotle’s philosophical system is broadly compatible with Christian thought. I begin with a sketch of Arist