Dr Ward of Knox College obviously considers himself a sophisticated fellow. You can tell by the humorous yet statesmanlike tone of his article 'Psst … wanna hear a conspiracy theory?' (ODT 29/6/06). 'It is important', he thinks 'in dialoguing with conspiracy thinking, not just to refute it … but to ask why is it that people are believing this theory?' This apparently 'would create a much healthier dialogue than the shouting past each other that often seems to take place.' In (...) other words, in addition to refuting conspiracy theories (which he takes for granted can usually be done) we should offer diagnoses of the ideological obsessions underlying the conspiracy theorists' errors. I'm not so sure that this procedure would really promote the healthy dialogue that he desires (since conspiracy theorists might find it a little patronizing). But what is really wrong with his article is not his patronizing proposal but the bland assumption on which his article is based that of course conspiracy theories are false or foolish simply because they are conspiracy theories. So far from being the sophisticated view this is one of the most dangerous and idiotic ideas to disgrace our political culture. Strong words, these, so I had better back them up. Let's start with 'idiotic'. A conspiracy is a secret plan to influence events by partly covert action. Conspiracies are not necessarily wrong - there can be conspiracies in the public interest as when Stauffenberg and his associates conspired to murder Hitler or when leading civil servants conspired to leak information to Winston Churchill (then on the back benches) about the looming Nazi threat - but we generally talk of conspiracy when the secret plan in question seems morally questionable, at least to some people. (If nobody disapproved, there would be no need to keep the plan a secret!) A conspiracy theory is a theory which endeavours to explain some set of events by postulating a conspiracy, successful or otherwise.. (shrink)
Frank Snare had a puzzle. He construed Hume as a non-cognitivist, indeed, as the non-cognitivist, the fount and origin of contemporary non-cognitivism. Taking Hume to be a non-cognitivist, Snare devoted a great deal of time and effort to the Motivation Argument, or as he called it, the Influence Argument, which he took to be the chief weapon in Hume.
Russell’s Human Society is a fun book to read, but meta-ethically it is a bit of a mess. There is much wit and some wisdom, though both the wit and the wisdom are more conspicuous when he is discussing human nature and human society than when he is discussing the finer points of ethical theory. (I particularly like his frequent complaints that human behavior seldom rises to the level of enlightened self-interest. If only we could manage to be intelligently selfish, (...) the world would be a much better place.) The drift of the argument is sometimes difficult to discern, partly because of has frequent digressions to make bon mots, and partly because of his dialectical method of presentation, which approaches what he takes to be the truth via a series of successive approximations. Human Society in Ethics and Politics was published in 1954, but the meta-ethical bits were originally written some years earlier and intended for inclusion in Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits, (1948). Russell held them back because he was not sure whether ethical propositions rose to the dignity of knowledge. He continued to be doubtful about this, but by the early 1950s his doubts had sufficiently dissipated for publication to become a possibility. Nevertheless, there are marked analogies between the two books. Human Knowledge attempts to establish the existence of a mindindependent world on the basis of private perceptions. Human Society attempts to establish an ethic that is in some degree independent of individual minds on the basis of subjective sentiments. (shrink)
to the novice or non-specialist. Nevertheless, there is much that is useful in this study, but those who read it will need to have some discernment, and those who teach from it will need to offer their students some direction.
With the exception of the occasional Damn-you-to-Hell types such as Mr Owen Burke of Timaru (ODT, 7/7/04), most opponents of the Civil Unions Bill like to pretend that they are not doing it out of hostility to homosexuals (who they sometimes, rather patronizingly, claim to love as people) but out of zeal for the institution of marriage. If civil unions are allowed, marriage will be damaged, and that is why they are against the Bill. The problem with this rationale is (...) that it is obviously false. Civil unions won’t damage marriage. And this so very obvious that it calls into question either the good sense or the good faith of those (like the Catholic Bishops and the members of the United Party) who proclaim that it is a zeal for holy matrimony rather than a dislike of a deviant minority that dictates their political conduct. (shrink)
Politics is a passionate business, and political loyalty is a bit like love. It can wax, it can wane, it can die and it can be killed. Right now my loyalty to the Alliance is at its last gasp. I am not yet talking to my lawyers, but I am certainly considering a trial separation. To some extent this is 'just one of those things'. I should have been aware that my political love affair was too hot not to cool (...) down. After eleven years of effort, the time has come to be a less active activist and I would have made the same decision even if I had approved of the way that the Party was going. But cooling down is one thing and giving up on the Party is quite another. The real reason for the impending rift is that the Party leadership and I have 'differences' - differences which may prove to be 'irreconcilable'. These are partly personal but mostly political since they relate to the tactics, the strategy and perhaps the ultimate goals of the Alliance. (shrink)
(Supplement to Monty Python’s Australian Philosophers ‘Bruce’ Sketch, Occasioned by the large number of Australian philosophers called ‘Karen’) Dramatis Personae: KAREN 1 (Head of Department: rugged and decisive. Farm animals instinctively obey.) KAREN 2 (Hume Studies: tough lady cop from ‘Water Rats’.) KAREN 3 (Wittgenstein and Philosophy of Science: more aggressive – tough lady crime lord from ‘Water Rats’.) KAREN 4 (Practical Reasoning: Put upon - still fairly rugged but it is not an accident that she is the one who (...) often ends up mucking out the stables.) AISLING (Young woman with slight Irish accent tempered by some years at the ANU.). (shrink)
The following is a list of the 200 level, second year papers available in the Philosophy Department in 2008. Click here for more information on papers offered and course requirements.
Dear Comrades, On Saturday the 18th of September, I received what purports to be a ‘backgrounder’ on Alliance revenue policy. I say ‘purports’ because as a backgrounder it leaves a lot to be desired. a) Anyone not already familiar with the issues would have considerable difficulty working out what the dispute is all about. b) You would expect a REAL backgrounder on what is a controversial matter within the federal Party to present BOTH sides of the question. This ‘backgrounder’ is (...) a one-sided polemic in favour of one option, an option which breaks with previous Alliance policy and which is vehemently opposed by at least ONE of the federated parties (the NLP). It is true that the document is a badly argued and not very convincing polemic, but its defects as a polemic don’t add up to virtues as a backgrounder. This reply is an attempt a) to explain the issues, b) to argue for the alternative option and c) to respond to the backgrounder. It is a labour I perform with some reluctance and not a little difficulty since I don’t have access to much of the relevant data. I resent the fact that I have had to spend so much time on this task when a more even-handed backgrounder or a companion piece explaining the NLP’s alternative would have saved me the trouble. Undemocratic attempts to manipulate the debate - which is what this backgrounder seems to be - are not just shabby in themselves: they tend to waste the time and the energy of party workers. (shrink)
In 2003 the Otago Philosophy Department scored 6.6. This made it the highest scoring department in any discipline in any university in New Zealand. In 2007 we increased our score to 7.5, thus retaining our status as New Zealand's number one research department.
There have been books written since 1997 both on Hume’s ethics and on metaethics generally which make no mention of Gerhard Schurz’s The Is-Ought Problem. I don’t say that they are ipso facto bad books since they may have merits which make up for this glaring defect. But Schurz’s magnificent The Is-Ought Problem is a major contribution to both logic and metaethics and ethicists who disregard it do so at their intellectual peril.
DEAR Mr Anderton, your letter to members asks us to tick one of two boxes: to "stay on course as common sense, constructive coalition partners" or to "head off on an alternative course of oppositional politics". I'm afraid I cannot tick either box in such a slanted "have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife-yet?" questionnaire.
Dr Ward of Knox College obviously considers himself a sophisticated fellow. You can tell by the humorous yet statesmanlike tone of his article 'Psst … wanna hear a conspiracy theory?' (ODT 29/6/06). 'It is important', he thinks 'in dialoguing with conspiracy thinking, not just to refute it … but to ask why is it that people are believing this theory?' This apparently 'would create a much healthier dialogue than the shouting past each other that often seems to take place.' In (...) other words, in addition to refuting conspiracy theories (which he takes for granted can usually be done) we should offer diagnoses of the ideological obsessions underlying the conspiracy theorists' errors. I'm not so sure that this procedure would really promote the healthy dialogue that he desires (since conspiracy theorists might find it a little patronizing). But what is really wrong with his article is not his patronizing proposal but the bland assumption on which his article is based that of course conspiracy theories are false or foolish simply because they are conspiracy theories. So far from being the sophisticated view this is one of the most dangerous and idiotic ideas to disgrace our political culture. Strong words, these, so I had better back them up. Let's start with 'idiotic'. A conspiracy is a secret plan to influence events by partly covert action. Conspiracies are not necessarily wrong - there can be conspiracies in the public interest as when Stauffenberg and his associates conspired to murder Hitler or when leading civil servants conspired to leak information to Winston Churchill (then on the back benches) about the looming Nazi threat - but we generally talk of conspiracy when the secret plan in question seems morally questionable, at least to some people. (If nobody disapproved, there would be no need to keep the plan a secret!) A conspiracy theory is a theory which endeavours to explain some set of events by postulating a conspiracy, successful or otherwise.. (shrink)
In his metaphysical summa of 1986, The Plurality of Worlds, David Lewis famously defends a doctrine he calls ‘modal realism’, the idea that to account for the fact that some things are possible and some things are necessary we must postulate an infinity possible worlds, concrete entities like our own universe, but cut off from us in space and time. Possible worlds are required to account for the facts of modality without assuming that modality is primitive – that there are (...) irreducibly modal facts. We argue that on one reading, Lewis’s theory licenses us to assume maverick possible worlds which spread through logical space gobbling up all the rest. Because they exclude alternatives, these worlds result in contradictions, since different spread worlds are incompatible with one another. Plainly Lewis’s theory must be amended to exclude these excluders. But, we maintain, this cannot be done without bringing in modal primitives. And once we admit modal primitives, bang goes the rationale for Lewis’s modal realism. (shrink)
The paper reconstructs Moore's Open Question Argument (OQA) and discusses its rise and fall. There are three basic objections to the OQA: Geach's point, that Moore presupposes that ?good? is a predicative adjective (whereas it is in fact attributive); Lewy's point, that it leads straight to the Paradox of Analysis; and Durrant's point that even if ?good? is not synonymous with any naturalistic predicate, goodness might be synthetically identical with a naturalistic property. As against Geach, I argue that ?good? has (...) both predicative and attributive uses and that in moral contexts it is difficult to give a naturalistic account of the attributive ?good?. To deal with Lewy, I reformulate the OQA. But the bulk of the paper is devoted to Durrant's objection. I argue that the post-Moorean programme of looking for synthetic identities between moral and naturalistic properties is either redundant or impossible. For it can be carried through only if ?good? expresses an empirical concept, in which case it is redundant since naturalism is true. But ?good? does not express an empirical concept (a point proved by the reformulated OQA). Hence synthetic naturalism is impossible. I discuss direct reference as a possible way out for the synthetic naturalist and conclude that it will not work. The OQA may be a bit battered but it works after a fashion. (shrink)
I contend that Nagel’s famous argument in The Possibility of Altruism that causally biffy desires are not required to explain action is intellectually worthless, and thus that many philosophies of action - and some systems of ethics - are based upon a crude blunder. [The essay also ends with a bit of surveying of ordinary folk's intuitions about whether desires are causal.].
Machine generated contents note: Preface and Acknowledgements * Series Editor's Preface * Notes on the Contributors * A Note on References to Hume and Locke * Introduction; C.Pigden * Expressivism, Motivation Internalism, and Hume; R.Joyce * Is Hume Inconsistent? -- Motivation and Morals; N.Lo * If Not Non-Cognitivism, Then What?; C.Pigden * The Motivation Argument for Non-cognitivism; M.Smith * Experiences of Value; G.Oddie * Hume and the Debate on Motivating Reasons; C.Sandis * Against all Reason: Scepticism about the Instrumental Norm; (...) S.Finlay * Why Internalists about Reasons Should be Humeans about Motivation; K.Hurtig * Humean Sources of Normativity; H.Pauer-Studer * Two Kinds of Normativity; L.Russell * What Kind of Virtue-Theorist is Hume?; C.Swanton * Kinds of Virtue Theorist: A Response to Christine Swanton; A.Baier * Reply to Annette Baier; C.Swanton * Hume on Justice; R.Hursthouse * Consolidated Bibliography * Index Preface and Acknowledgements * Series Editor's Preface * Notes on the Contributors * A Note on References to Hume and Locke * Introduction; C.Pigden * Expressivism, Motivation Internalism, and Hume; R.Joyce * Is Hume Inconsistent? -- Motivation and Morals; N.Lo * If Not Non-Cognitivism, Then What?; C.Pigden * The Motivation Argument for Non-cognitivism; M.Smith * Experiences of Value; G.Oddie * Hume and the Debate on Motivating Reasons; C.Sandis * Against all Reason: Scepticism about the Instrumental Norm; S.Finlay * Why Internalists about Reasons Should be Humeans about Motivation; K.Hurtig * Humean Sources of Normativity; H.Pauer-Studer * Two Kinds of Normativity; L.Russell * What Kind of Virtue-Theorist is Hume?; C.Swanton * Kinds of Virtue Theorist: A Response to Christine Swanton; A.Baier * Reply to Annette Baier; C.Swanton * Hume on Justice; R.Hursthouse * Consolidated Bibliography * Index. (shrink)
2. Moore’s Influence on Russell 3. Sidgwick’s Problem and the Rejection of Idealism 4. Russell versus Moore: Two Kinds of Consequentialism 5. Politics, Consequentialism and the Need for Skepticism 6. Consequentialism, Emotivism and Moral Reform 7. Objections to Emotivism and Relativism..
Abstract Conspiracy theories should be neither believed nor investigated - that is the conventional wisdom. I argue that it is sometimes permissible both to investigate and to believe. Hence this is a dispute in the ethics of belief. I defend epistemic “oughts” that apply in the first instance to belief-forming strategies that are partly under our control. But the beliefforming strategy of not believing conspiracy theories would be a political disaster and the epistemic equivalent of selfmutilation. I discuss several variations (...) of this strategy, interpreting “conspiracy theory” in different ways but conclude that on all these readings, the conventional wisdom is deeply unwise. (shrink)
Nihilism, Nietzsche and the Doppelganger Problem Was Nietzsche a nihilist? Yes, because, like J. L. Mackie, he was an error-theorist about morality, including the elitist morality to which he himself subscribed. But he was variously a diagnostician, an opponent and a survivor of certain other kinds of nihilism. Schacht argues that Nietzsche cannot have been an error theorist, since meta-ethical nihilism is inconsistent with the moral commitment that Nietzsche displayed. Schacht’s exegetical argument parallels the substantive argument (advocated in recent years (...) by Wright and Blackburn) that Mackie’s error theory can’t be true because if it were, we would have to give up morality or give up moralizing. I answer this argument with a little bit of help from Nietzsche. I then pose a problem, the Doppelganger Problem, for the meta-ethical nihilism that I attribute to Mackie and Nietzsche. (If A is a moral proposition then not-A is a moral proposition: hence not all moral propositions can be false.) I solve the problem by reformulating the error theory and also deal with a variant of the problem, the Reinforced Doppelganger, glancing at a famous paper of Ronald Dworkin’s. Thus, whatever its demerits, the error theory, is not self-refuting, nor does it require us to give up morality. (shrink)
According to the truthmaker theory that we favour, all contingent truths are made true by existing facts or states of affairs. But if that is so, then it appears that we must accept the existence of the negative facts that are required to make negative truths (such as 'There is no hippopotamus in the room.') true. We deny the existence of negative facts, show how negative truths are made true by positive facts, point out where the (reluctant) advocates of negative (...) facts (Russell, Armstrong, et al.) went wrong, and demonstrate the superiority of our solution to the alternatives. (shrink)
Bertrand Russell was a meta-ethical pioneer, the original inventor of both emotivism and the error theory. Why, having abandoned emotivism for the error theory, did he switch back to emotivism in the 1920s? Perhaps he did not relish the thought that as a moralist he was a professional hypocrite. In addition, Russell's version of the error theory suffers from severe defects. He commits the naturalistic fallacy and runs afoul of his own and Moore's arguments against subjectivism. These defects could be (...) repaired, but only by abandoning Russell's semantics.Russell preferred to revert to emotivism. (shrink)
Conpiracy theories are widely deemed to be superstitious. Yet history appears to be littered with conspiracies successful and otherwise. (For this reason, "cock-up" theories cannot in general replace conspiracy theories, since in many cases the cock-ups are simply failed conspiracies.) Why then is it silly to suppose that historical events are sometimes due to conspiracy? The only argument available to this author is drawn from the work of the late Sir Karl Popper, who criticizes what he calls "the conspiracy theory (...) of society" in The Open Society and elsewhere. His critique of the conspiracy theory is indeed sound, but it is a theory no sane person maintains. Moreover, its falsehood is compatible with the prevalence of conspiracies. Nor do his arguments create any presumption against conspiracy theories of this or that. Thus the belief that it is superstitious to posit conspiracies is itself a superstition. The article concludes with some speculations as to why this superstition is so widely believed. (shrink)
In his celebrated 'Good and Evil' (l956) Professor Geach fights a war on two fronts. On the one hand, he wants to establish, as against the nonnaturalists, that the predicative 'good', as used by Moore, is senseless. 'Good' when properly used is attributive. 'There is no such thing as being just good or bad, [that is, no predicative 'good'] there is only being a good or bad so and so'. (GE, page 65) The predicative 'good' is a philosopher's word and (...) we cannot be 'asked to take it for granted from the outset that a peculiarly philosophical use of words means anything at all'! (GE, page 67.) Attempts to define this phantom have foundered for the simple reason that there is really no such use to be defined. The search for a property for which 'good' stands - a 'way out of the Naturalistic Fallacy' - is a vain one. The idea that 'it' stands for a non-natural property is thus a pseudo-solution to a pseudo-problem. (GE, pages 66-67.) On the other hand, Geach insists, as against non-cognitivists, that good-judgements are entirely 'descriptive'. By a consideration of what it is to be an A, we can determine what it is to be a good A. (shrink)
In every system of morality I have hitherto met with, I have always remark'd that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions is and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought or ought not. This change is imperceptible, but (...) is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought or ought not expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time a reason should be given for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others which are entirely different from it. (shrink)
In 1958 Professor Anscombe propounded three theses in her famous paper 'Modern Moral Philosophy' (Philosophy, vol. 33; all references to the reprint in Anscombe (1981) Ethics, Religion and Politics, under the abbreviation MMP). They were that moral philosophy should be abandoned until an adequate philosophy of psychology could be evolved; that we ought to give up Ought1 in its emphatic moral sense, as it is a senseless survivor from a defunct conceptual scheme; and that British moral philosophers since Sidgwick have (...) shown no significant differences. Later on, she makes it plain that they are not just indistinguishable, but indistinguishably awful, their major joint defect being that they have "put out" consequentialist philosophies. (shrink)
Grice and Strawson's 'In Defense of a Dogma is admired even by revisionist Quineans such as Putnam (1962) who should know better. The analytic/synthetic distinction they defend is distinct from that which Putnam successfully rehabilitates. Theirs is the post-positivist distinction bounding a grossly enlarged analytic. It is not, as they claim, the sanctified product of a long philosophic tradition, but the cast-off of a defunct philosophy - logical positivism. The fact that the distinction can be communally drawn does not show (...) that it is based on a real difference. Subcategories that can be grouped together by enumeration will do the trick. Quine's polemical tactic (against which Grice and Strawson protest) of questioning the intelligibility of the distinction is indeed objectionable, but his argument can be revived once it is realized that 'analytic' et al. are theoretic terms, and there is no extant theory to make sense of them. Grice and Strawson's paradigm of logical impossibility is, in fact, possible. Their attempt to define synonymy in Quinean terms is a failure, nor can they retain analyticity along with the Quinean thesis of universal revisability. The dogma, in short, is indefensible. (shrink)
The Quine/Putnam indispensability argument is regarded by many as the chief argument for the existence of platonic objects. We argue that this argument cannot establish what its proponents intend. The form of our argument is simple. Suppose indispensability to science is the only good reason for believing in the existence of platonic objects. Either the dispensability of mathematical objects to science can be demonstrated and, hence, there is no good reason for believing in the existence of platonic objects, or their (...) dispensability cannot be demonstrated and, hence, there is no good reason for believing in the existence of mathematical objects which are genuinely platonic. Therefore, indispensability, whether true or false, does not support platonism. Mathematical platonists claim that at least some of the objects which are the subject matter of pure mathematics (e.g. numbers, sets, groups) actually exist. Furthermore, they claim that these objects differ radically from the concrete objects (trees, cats, stars, molecules) which inhabit the material world. We take the standard platonistic position to include the claim that platonic objects lack spatio-temporal location and causal powers. Many (perhaps most) mathematical platonists subscribe to this view.1 But some who call themselves (or might be called) mathematical platonists.. (shrink)
