In this bloggingheads vlog Will Wilkinson talks to Saul Smilansky about moral paradoxes.
Basically, what happens when you take assumptions that seem indisputable. You use those assumptions to build a logical and correct argument...
But then the conclusion you get turns out to be absurd.
hmmm. What then?
We somehow believe that even though we haven't thought it through, our moral beliefs that we think are very obvious will be coherent and consistent. Maybe this isn't possible.
There are some very interesting examples they give.
1) Is it wrong to steal from a thief?
2) Was McCain fortunate to be tortured, and Obama fortunate to be discriminated against for being black?
3) Should you retire/give up your position which you really want if someone else will be better than you at it?
amongst others....
Sounds like Smilansky's book "Ten Moral Paradoxes" will be quite interesting. Apparently it is very readable too.
1 comment:
I didn't like this vlog especially.
I don't really like the example of obama as a case of fortunate misfortune. The discrimination was pretty mild, and being black definitely helped too. he wouldn't have become a professor at harvard when he did if he had been white. so my heart doesn't bleed.
Post a Comment