tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post4354931600988929010..comments2024-03-28T19:14:33.619-07:00Comments on The Splintered Mind: Nazi Philosophers, World War I, and the Grand Wisdom HypothesisEric Schwitzgebelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-61703429680425851492020-12-11T08:54:47.041-08:002020-12-11T08:54:47.041-08:00Hi all:
Howie: Based on my empirical research, I ...Hi all:<br /><br />Howie: Based on my empirical research, I wouldn't expect it to be specialists in ethical reasoning, but I don't have a solid positive prediction.<br /><br />Arnold: Yes, starting with one's own experience sounds right.<br /><br />Chinaphil: It's an intriguing analogy, but I don't think it quite works. Here's why. Although we don't expect coaches to be the very best athletes, I do think it's reasonable to expect coaches to be on average better athletes than comparison groups of non-athletically-involved people of similar age and body type. If I were choosing players for a baseball team of 50-year-olds and I learned that one person was a baseball coach, not knowing anything else, I'd expect that person to be a better player than the other 50-year-olds. The claim is not that ethicists aren't saints (that would be like complaining that coaches aren't athletic stars) but rather that ethicists aren't better on average than others of their social group.Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16274774112862434865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-79756550114081011362020-12-10T09:00:28.651-08:002020-12-10T09:00:28.651-08:00This is pretty damning evidence, I think, and phil...This is pretty damning evidence, I think, and philosophers/ethicists don't come out of it looking good.<br />But I wonder if there is one model of teaching that we could apply that might allow this data to make more sense. That is the model of the professional sports coach.<br />A professional sports coach coaches people who are better at the sport than she is. That is to say, her role as a teacher does *not* depend on superior ability to do the thing she teaches. Rather, she knows the ways in which anyone - including those of very superior ability - can improve still further. <br />If we take this model and apply it to professors of ethics, perhaps we can find a role for them, without demanding that they possess superior ethical abilities. In this analogy the person being coached may be either the students, or society as a whole. And the professors' role is not to be better at morality than the people they teach; rather it is to provide ways in which the learners can improve.chinaphilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14572591745611690731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-50971559752169407932020-12-08T08:23:32.960-08:002020-12-08T08:23:32.960-08:00I think you could-be talking about the difficulty ...I think you could-be talking about the difficulty of remembering/including oneself as part of, in face of the necessities of life, like what 'racial stats reveal', and in my case my grandchildren just now arriving for on line grade school education this morning, and now returning to writing this comment...that ethics and morality should begin with ones own experience as a foundation then...thanks Arnoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02580641063222662041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-82842043378498548392020-12-07T09:17:22.771-08:002020-12-07T09:17:22.771-08:00So what group of people will behave ethically? How...So what group of people will behave ethically? How would you test such a thing?Howiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12474061778220524205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-50616079284621536622020-12-07T08:14:48.246-08:002020-12-07T08:14:48.246-08:00Yeah, there's some truth in all that -- but I ...Yeah, there's some truth in all that -- but I wouldn't bet on psychologists being any better either, on average, or even clergy.Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16274774112862434865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-3791154881568158512020-12-02T15:14:29.381-08:002020-12-02T15:14:29.381-08:00Plus, philosophers are professors, situated in a g...Plus, philosophers are professors, situated in a given context and set of social roles- challenging ethical situations are novel and people in novel situations react cautiously if not defensively- unless they are take charge and worldly people they won't really know how to act, even if they intellectually doHowiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12474061778220524205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-83009970968857731332020-12-02T15:10:58.205-08:002020-12-02T15:10:58.205-08:00Professor
Philosophers are interested in winning ...Professor<br /><br />Philosophers are interested in winning arguments not being good people. That's my educated guess- perhaps psychologists would fare better, because the nature of their work involves benevolence.<br />We can discuss more deeply the reasons- but philosophers seek truth not goodness Howiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12474061778220524205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-80490198453191735042020-11-30T08:30:16.562-08:002020-11-30T08:30:16.562-08:00Thanks for the comments, everyone!
Howie: Yes, I ...Thanks for the comments, everyone!<br /><br />Howie: Yes, I agree that studying ethics won't by itself make one ethical.<br /><br />P Eric: I'm inclined to think there's a way to thread the needle -- allowing moral judgments to be an evolved reaction to demands on our species while also being a certain type of realist about those judgments -- something in the direction of Owen Flanagan or Peter Railton, maybe.<br /><br />Luke: Yes, the terrible history of socialism in the 20th century is testimony of the huge gaps that it's possible to create between slogan and practice. Religions also provide plenty of astoundingly painful examples, of course. Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16274774112862434865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-9188926486747277592020-11-27T09:25:19.988-08:002020-11-27T09:25:19.988-08:00A somewhat related data point, not for the ethics ...A somewhat related data point, not for the ethics of philosophy professors but for the role of theoretical ideals in ethical practice, is the collapse of the Second International: a worldwide association of socialist parties, loudly dedicated to internationalism and opposition to war, basically rendered itself irrelevant because most of the major parties decided to back their respective national governments in WWI. Luke Roelofshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05462649815665164176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-30923385093837983902020-11-26T10:53:23.647-08:002020-11-26T10:53:23.647-08:00My father was 20 years old in 1928 Germany...
...W...My father was 20 years old in 1928 Germany...<br />...Was then the right time, after 400 yrs of science, optics, philosophy, religion and enlightenment-in part-ending in World War I...<br /><br />For he and anyone with the slightest feel for their own individuality...<br />...then to have left it all, go to America and begin 'Paying For Their Own Existence'...<br /><br />Academia, professors and teachers, please, "teach your children well"...thanksArnoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02580641063222662041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-64272304572851184412020-11-24T21:50:27.746-08:002020-11-24T21:50:27.746-08:00I’m not much for the institution of “morality”, si...I’m not much for the institution of “morality”, since I see it essentially as an evolved social tool from which to cause creatures that are fundamentally self interested but highly social, to form more effective societies given theory of mind based influences. Essentially if evolution hadn’t cause us to care about what others think of us, then our species shouldn’t survive as well as it does. I guess I’m a moral relativist in the sense that I consider “the ought” to be defined entirely by society, though the welfare of any given subject (or “the is”), to instead be determined through a subject’s sentience itself (or phenomenal experience, qualia, etc…). <br /><br />Furthermore it makes sense to me that our mental and behavioral sciences would remain as soft as they do given this tool. Notice that the physicist will not be socially penalized for effectively describing gravity, though the psychologist should be whenever various moral notions get in the way of their work. Thus if we’re ultimately self interested products of our circumstances (a stance sometimes referred to as “psychological egoism”), then the social tool of morality should hinder our ability to develop effective general theory regarding our nature. <br /><br />Whenever you discuss this book of yours professor, I’ve noticed that you also tend to validate my own position. I guess I should finally read it.Philosopher Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11126076811765843302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-74067236138717545142020-11-24T13:54:26.177-08:002020-11-24T13:54:26.177-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Arnoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02580641063222662041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-30969865965132610382020-11-23T16:29:26.089-08:002020-11-23T16:29:26.089-08:00I am of Jewish heritage and Nietzsche commented on...I am of Jewish heritage and Nietzsche commented on how my people were considered standard bearers of Plato. Or something like that. So consider Judaism or Christianity or Islam or maybe eastern religions as schools of philosophy focused on justice and ethics but with odd metaphysics. The Rabbis are philosophers and the martyrs of the Warsaw ghetto had two thousand years behind them and the Germans who resisted Hitler (correct me if I'm wrong) were inspired by Christianity's finer moments.<br />The problem as I see it is that having a moral belief will not lead to right conduct unless it is embedded in a community and a tradition of action. Take Buddhism, I think it's called the eightfoid path: not just right thinking is required but right action.<br />Being a Kantian and knowing his system's ethics does not commit you to be an ethical person- knowing that you should treat people as an end and not a means is not enough and professors aren't Rabbis or Priests or monks or imams. Because of how the world is set up and because of how the resistances and the inertia in human beings, belief is not enough or ought to be, as per your theorizing measured by action in the real world- those Nazi Kantians and so on, didn't really know Kant- Whitehead and Wittgenstein really didn't understand Plato or logic if it led them to be bellicose.<br />There is some room for ambiguity, but philosophy in itself doesn't make one ethical, rather being part of a community and a tradition does that- knowledge in this case should require (and this is added to my argument) wisdom- those ethicists who balk at ethics are at the very least not wise, while those Rabbis and Priests and Monks and Imams, are Howiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12474061778220524205noreply@blogger.com