Keyboard Shortcuts?f

×
  • →Next step
  • ←Previous step
  • ↓Skip this slide
  • ↑Previous slide
  • mShow slide thumbnails
  • tShow transcript (+SHIFT = all transcript)
  • nShow notes (+SHIFT = all notes)

Please be cautious in using the transcripts.

They were created mechanically and have mostly not been checked or revised.

Here is how they were created:

  1. live lecture recorded;
  2. machine transcription of live recording;
  3. ask LLM to clean up transcript, and link to individual slides.

This is an error-prone process.

Click here and press the right key for the next slide.

(This may not work on mobile or ipad. You can try using chrome or firefox, but even that may fail. Sorry.)

also ...

Press the left key to go backwards (or swipe right)

Press n to toggle whether notes are shown (or add '?notes' to the url before the #)

Press m or double tap to slide thumbnails (menu)

Press ? at any time to show the keyboard shortcuts

 

Conclusion

conclusion

In conclusion, ...
insert-transcript#a3c2f217-f906-4c6f-81e9-ccebebb95f17-here
insert-transcript#240ff0ff-0a6a-4f63-a2c6-b23c8c4270b7-here
approach discoveries directly relevantdiscoveries indirectly relevant
Foot (1967)✓
Singer (1972)✓
Kamm (2008)✓
Thomson (1976)𐄂?
So: some philosophers’ methods mean that discoveries in moral psychology are directly relevant to ethics, but not all.

Can framing effects show that discoveries in moral psychology are indirectly relevant? No

insert-transcript#d0a7a71e-a51c-46c0-a571-0ccc981b49cf-here

Could scientific discoveries undermine, or support,
ethical principles?

Phase 2

Identify general arguments against the use of intuitions in doing ethics.

Consider implications for Rawl’s method of reflective equilibrium.

Phase 1

Find places where a particular philosopher’s ethical argument relies on an empirical claim, and where knowledge of this claim depends on scientific discoveries.

Can be supportive rather than debunking. However, practically speaking, it’s easier to show that knowledge of the claim depends on scientific discoveries when the science contradicts the ethicist’s claim. (Otherwise it’s hard to show that the ethicist knew the claim was true all along.)

✓