tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post8401942163240059780..comments2024-03-28T08:57:53.180+00:00Comments on Darwinian Conservatism by Larry Arnhart: PZ Myers, MoralistLarry Arnharthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-77705095262120347112010-09-06T05:40:52.281+01:002010-09-06T05:40:52.281+01:00Paul,
One answer to your question is that Nietzsc...Paul,<br /><br />One answer to your question is that Nietzsche wondered if he -- and all the other philosophers -- were a moral monster precisely for that reason. <br /><br />Another answer: Hayek built into his theory of the spontaneous order a role for what he termed "eminent criticism." This would be the role of the moral philosophers, properly understood. To twist a phrase, the goal is to change the world by understanding it. Meanwhile, the rest of mankind is changing the world by living it. What one must never do is try to change it by imposing it. Those are the moral monsters.Troy Camplinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16515578686042143845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-78666740741593692092010-09-06T01:36:41.637+01:002010-09-06T01:36:41.637+01:00I've learned my lesson.I've learned my lesson.Larry Arnharthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-32222779227634333172010-09-06T00:49:11.522+01:002010-09-06T00:49:11.522+01:00Why is it that your least interesting posts seem t...Why is it that your least interesting posts seem to get the most attention? 31 comments on some hyperpole about a flatulent biologist? That must be a new record.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-21995349334988240852010-09-05T17:01:29.102+01:002010-09-05T17:01:29.102+01:00Paul,
You raise interesting questions.
On the re...Paul, <br />You raise interesting questions.<br /><br />On the relationship between philosophy and society, I suggest The Apology as a good starting point.<br /><br />Do you really think that the legal structure of liberal society, including freedom of expression, conflicts with man's evolved moral sentiments? If so, you would be disagreeing with all the originators of the moral sense theory, and, as far as I can tell, all the modern exponents such as James Q Wilson. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but I am unaware of any attempt to make that case in detail. Arnhart's question to Myers is also the question to you.<br /> <br />Also, Volaire never said that thing often attributed to him.Kent Guidahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00119882444127499607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-52603340209430055702010-09-04T21:19:22.451+01:002010-09-04T21:19:22.451+01:00Is morality at base only defined by empathy and a ...Is morality at base only defined by empathy and a desire not to harm or be harmed by others? I am wary of such a view, because such a view implies that philosophers, in their questioning of everything, might be moral monsters. However, if liberal society is dominated by the opinion that people be restrained from doing harm to others, doesn't that imply that real philosophers, as opposed to mere scholars of philosophy, be banned from liberal society? Yet free speech is one of the central principles of any liberal society, isn't it? So liberal morality, while taking significant direction from our natural empathy, is also rooted in other intuitions, intuitions which do come into conflict with empathy. One needs only think of groups like the KKK and Voltaire's famous quip, "I disagree with everything you say, but I'd fight to death to defend your right to say it." I guess what I am wondering is if a liberal social order cultivates the moral sentiments that Myers prefers, and if not, should society become less liberal?<br /><br />-PaulAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com