‘Immoral’

I hate when laypeople use the word immoral. In fact; I hate when pissant non-philosophers think they know ethics.

Forget [edit] them. They haven’t studied Aristotle or Kant! All they have is intuition. Pissants…

Antisophie

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “‘Immoral’

  1. I take it you don’t mind when pissant philosophers think they know ethics? >:)

    Personally, I hate it when pissant scientists think they know *philosophy*! But that’s another story…

  2. In reply Chris, pissant philosophers are cut down by more superior peers. Laypeople don’t get humiliated or scrutinised in the same way people do in the academy. I hate when people state a moral view without arguing for it; yet think it doesn’t need argument, or is exempt from criticism

    Sinistre*

  3. Yes, I know what you mean. Often when people present views that they feel don’t need argument it is an example of what I have termed “Arrogant Realism” (“I am clearly right, therefore you must be wrong”, which I staunchly oppose.

    Out of interest, who do you think are the “superior peers” in modern philosophy?

  4. Modern philosophy, or contemporary philosophy? The former expression refers to historical philoosphy from Descartes to Mill; I won’t answer that, as there is a long list, and isn’t relevant, as they are all dead.

    Contemporary superiors? Well, anyone who’s a better philosopher. That is quite a long list at present 🙂

  5. I would not go so far as to say that you must have read works by these philosophers to contribute to discourse about morality. Many philosophers have begun thinking about their subject without substantial reading and still made worthwhile contributions. It is rather elitist to say that to have something worth saying you must have read certain authors.

    Of course you must be prepared to defend ones views if you want them to be taken seriously.

  6. Antisophie is very blunt sometimes, Barnaby. Her point was this; its quite unacceptable to engage in a moral view without defending or arguing for it. To simply assert it is not to give any credence to it.

    If I say “Murder is wrong”, as an argumentative point, I should, being that it is an argumentative point, give a case for why this is the case. To simply say ‘this is my opinion and I am entitled to it’, is nonsense. People are entitled to their opinion insofar as they won’t get killed for it, but to be seriously respected and entertained without elucidating a point by means of motivations or justifications of a moral claim is a pretty deleterious social idea.

    If there is one ethicist we should read, it would be a utilitarian – Mill (despite me not liking them); they have quite profound insights, and very down-to-earth.

    Michael (ashamedly elitist)

You can leave a reply or comment here

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s