Wilfrid Sellars (1966) Science & Ethics: A Study in First Principles

Рет қаралды 4,565

2 жыл бұрын

Wilfrid Sellars gives a 1966 lecture which centers on natural and social sciences’ relationship to morality. In the context of conducting several thought experiments, Sellars explores what the act of valuation means to ethicists as opposed to scientists.
This talk was given by Wilfrid Sellars in 1966 as part of the 9th Annual Bishop John F. Hurst Philosophy Lecture, at the American University Center for Liberal Studies 3rd Annual Forum on the topic "The Arts in the New World of Machines."
Original Audio Source: dra.american.edu/islandora/ob...
#philosophy #metaethics #ethics

Пікірлер: 7

@Khuno2 2 жыл бұрын

Spectacular! Thank you

@brnoza298 2 жыл бұрын

Great lecture.. thank you for uploading.

@thehairblairbunchjones6209 2 жыл бұрын

Is it just me or does Sellars end up accepting the very virtue ethics he says he rejects earlier on in the lecture? Maybe the difference is that he’s not saying that specific moral judgments are made by reference to individual flourishing, but only that considerations of individual flourishing justify adopting the moral point of view in the first place. But then I’m not sure Plato or Aristotle would disagree with that. I don’t think they would say that an act of generosity should be performed on the basis that it is conducive to the flourishing of who performs it, but that the tendency to do it for its own sake is conducive to that person’s flourishing and is therefore part of a good life.

@Philosophy_Overdose 2 жыл бұрын

When did he reject virtue ethics? I don't remember him mentioning virtue ethics here at all...

@thehairblairbunchjones6209 2 жыл бұрын

@@Philosophy_Overdose when he talks about Plato conceiving of morality as being part of the happy life. He objects that even if morality and happiness coincide they are still distinct since happiness is a self-regarding concern and morality is other-regarding. But at the end he goes on to say that when asked why care about the moral point of view, we can say that adopting it is necessary for a happy life. But this seems closer to what I think was intended by the conception of moralistic as a facet of eudaimonia in the tradition discussed earlier.

@thehairblairbunchjones6209 2 жыл бұрын

It seems closer to it than the characterisation he gives when giving his reasons for rejecting Plato’s view, that is.

@GolumTR 2 жыл бұрын

@@thehairblairbunchjones6209 The dialectic he follows the meaning of the words “happy life” moved (as Socrates said all important words do). In his summary of Plato, “happy life” meant ‘a life of stable, low uncertainty pleasure’ but in his summary of Kant he let it mean ‘a life where I am respected as an “I”’. I agree his summary of Plato is a little hostile - it’s called Politeia not Sophrysyne - but it’s been 25 centuries of people motivating their moral philosophy by questionable interpretations of Politeia. At some point you gotta let that ship sail.