• Log In

The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast

A Philosophy Podcast and Philosophy Blog

Subscribe on Android Spotify Google Podcasts audible patreon
  • Home
  • Podcast
    • PEL Network Episodes
    • Publicly Available PEL Episodes
    • Paywalled and Ad-Free Episodes
    • PEL Episodes by Topic
    • Nightcap
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Pretty Much Pop
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • (sub)Text
    • Phi Fic Podcast
    • Combat & Classics
    • Constellary Tales
  • Blog
  • About
    • PEL FAQ
    • Meet PEL
    • About Pretty Much Pop
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • Meet Phi Fic
    • Listener Feedback
    • Links
  • Join
    • Become a Citizen
    • Join Our Mailing List
    • Log In
  • Donate
  • Store
    • Episodes
    • Swag
    • Everything Else
    • Cart
    • Checkout
    • My Account
  • Contact
  • Mailing List

Paul Boghossian (via Philosophy Bites) on Moral Relativism

November 8, 2011 by Mark Linsenmayer 1 Comment


We've discussed Paul Boghossian and his book against relativism
a bit in our Nelson Goodman episode. See my blog post on this from last year.

In this interview on the Philosophy Bites podcast, Boghossian talks about moral relativism, giving some shades of the view: e.g. you could be a relativist about manners but not really about the underlying principles girding them ("be polite!"). This accords with Smith's version, in which the most important moral points--e.g. generosity is good--are going to be universal, but lots of cultural factors are going to go into when and how much generosity is considered appropriate in a given circumstance.

Read Wes's post from August on the Boghossian/Stanley Fish exchange that the Philosophy Bites page refers to.

-Mark Linsenmayer

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Filed Under: Other (i.e. Lesser) Podcasts Tagged With: meta-ethics, moral relativism, Paul Boghossian, philosophy blog

Comments

  1. Jimi Nixen says

    November 9, 2011 at 11:15 am

    So, this might be the wrong way to think about things, but why can’t both ‘Moral Relativism’ and ‘Moral Absolutism’ (if that is the right contracting view) be correct, or at least useful in deciding the Morality of an action.

    For conversation, let me suggest that ‘Moral Relativism’ could give you the answer of what a person ‘should’ ‘ought’ to do, given a certain ‘limited’ set of information. Say, an incomplete set of information. And, ‘Moral absolutism’ would give you the answer of what a person ‘should’ ‘ought’ to do given ‘absolute’ information’.

    It seems to me, that in a ‘real world’ situation, no one has all the facts. And in many cases, no one knows the ultimate results of their actions. That said, hindsight is often 20/20, in that, as information is gained, we have a different set of facts to judge an action.

    To hold foresight to the moral rigor of hindsight, sounds like an standard where everyone will sin. But, is that the purpose of a moral standard, to show that our foresight is not as good as our hindsight? It seems like that would be easy to show.

    I think what might be more important is to contrast foresight and hindsight, and see if there are any important facts in hindsight that could be moved to foresight. If there are better predictions to be made in the future, then we should make them, no?

    In which case, you need accurate descriptions of both, the set of facts that were available at the time foresight was predicted, and the facts at the time hindsight was taken. And a way to compare the two. Or, restated, the set of facts in hindsight minus the set of facts at the time of foresight, equals moral opportunity to learn. (‘Moral Absolutism’ – ‘Moral Relativism’ = ‘Moral Opportunity’).

    Take the classic argument of child labour. If you have one set of facts, perhaps the old ‘relative’ set, ‘children need food to live, and if children don’t help in the field there won’t be enough food’, then take the new set, the new ‘absolute set’, ‘if children get the proper education, they can build machines to grow enough food for everyone’. If in both cases, we where thinking, ‘what’s best for the individual?’, or ‘what’s best for society?’ you can have two very different, and I’d like to suggest, ‘moral’ answers to the same questions, ‘what should/ought society do about child labour?’

    Anyway, just wanted to add the thought….

    -jimi

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

PEL Live Show 2023

Brothers K Live Show

Citizenship has its Benefits

Become a PEL Citizen
Become a PEL Citizen, and get access to all paywalled episodes, early and ad-free, including exclusive Part 2's for episodes starting September 2020; our after-show Nightcap, where the guys respond to listener email and chat more causally; a community of fellow learners, and more.

Rate and Review

Nightcap

Listen to Nightcap
On Nightcap, listen to the guys respond to listener email and chat more casually about their lives, the making of the show, current events and politics, and anything else that happens to come up.

Subscribe to Email Updates

Select list(s):

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Support PEL

Buy stuff through Amazon and send a few shekels our way at no extra cost to you.

Tweets by PartiallyExLife

Recent Comments

  • Seth Paskin on PEL Eulogies Nightcap Late March 2023
  • John Heath on PEL Eulogies Nightcap Late March 2023
  • Randy Strader on Ep. 309: Wittgenstein On Certainty (Part Two)
  • Wes Alwan on PEL Nightcap February 2023
  • Kunal on Why Don’t We Like Idealism?

About The Partially Examined Life

The Partially Examined Life is a philosophy podcast by some guys who were at one point set on doing philosophy for a living but then thought better of it. Each episode, we pick a text and chat about it with some balance between insight and flippancy. You don’t have to know any philosophy, or even to have read the text we’re talking about to (mostly) follow and (hopefully) enjoy the discussion

Become a PEL Citizen!

As a PEL Citizen, you’ll have access to a private social community of philosophers, thinkers, and other partial examiners where you can join or initiate discussion groups dedicated to particular readings, participate in lively forums, arrange online meet-ups for impromptu seminars, and more. PEL Citizens also have free access to podcast transcripts, guided readings, episode guides, PEL music, and other citizen-exclusive material. Click here to join.

Blog Post Categories

  • (sub)Text
  • Aftershow
  • Announcements
  • Audiobook
  • Book Excerpts
  • Citizen Content
  • Citizen Document
  • Citizen News
  • Close Reading
  • Combat and Classics
  • Constellary Tales
  • Exclude from Newsletter
  • Featured Ad-Free
  • Featured Article
  • General Announcements
  • Interview
  • Letter to the Editor
  • Misc. Philosophical Musings
  • Nakedly Examined Music Podcast
  • Nakedly Self-Examined Music
  • NEM Bonus
  • Not School Recording
  • Not School Report
  • Other (i.e. Lesser) Podcasts
  • PEL Music
  • PEL Nightcap
  • PEL's Notes
  • Personal Philosophies
  • Phi Fic Podcast
  • Philosophy vs. Improv
  • Podcast Episode (Citizen)
  • Podcast Episodes
  • Pretty Much Pop
  • Reviewage
  • Song Self-Exam
  • Supporter Exclusive
  • Things to Watch
  • Vintage Episode (Citizen)
  • Web Detritus

Follow:

Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | Apple Podcasts

Copyright © 2009 - 2023 · The Partially Examined Life, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy · Terms of Use · Copyright Policy

Copyright © 2023 · Magazine Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in