"Pretty much all of the genuinely important topics have already been discussed to death, making it nearly impossible to find something new to say about them." Really??
I would think there's lots of underexplored territory in ethics. A few examples: 1) Trying to use formal epistemology to create (reflectively equilibriaized) theories based…
"Pretty much all of the genuinely important topics have already been discussed to death, making it nearly impossible to find something new to say about them." Really??
I would think there's lots of underexplored territory in ethics. A few examples: 1) Trying to use formal epistemology to create (reflectively equilibriaized) theories based on systems of mutually inconsistent intuitions. 2) Using neural networks to assist building moral particularist theories in certain domains. 3) Exploring the ethics of humanoid creatures like Neanderthals.
“Trying to use formal epistemology to create (reflectively equilibriaized) theories based on systems of mutually inconsistent intuitions.”
The sounds like more of a logic problem (or meta logic?), rather than an ethics problem. It could apply to any context where knowledge is scarce and unreliable to an appreciable degree. What sorts of strategies can be devised for dealing with situations where our background assumptions contain contradictions, and hence are potentially vulnerable to logical explosions?
Yeah I agree a lot of the problem is more general issue in philosophy of science / logic / formal epistemology. But definitely relevant to ethics and probably some parts are particular to it.
"Pretty much all of the genuinely important topics have already been discussed to death, making it nearly impossible to find something new to say about them." Really??
I would think there's lots of underexplored territory in ethics. A few examples: 1) Trying to use formal epistemology to create (reflectively equilibriaized) theories based on systems of mutually inconsistent intuitions. 2) Using neural networks to assist building moral particularist theories in certain domains. 3) Exploring the ethics of humanoid creatures like Neanderthals.
“Trying to use formal epistemology to create (reflectively equilibriaized) theories based on systems of mutually inconsistent intuitions.”
The sounds like more of a logic problem (or meta logic?), rather than an ethics problem. It could apply to any context where knowledge is scarce and unreliable to an appreciable degree. What sorts of strategies can be devised for dealing with situations where our background assumptions contain contradictions, and hence are potentially vulnerable to logical explosions?
Yeah I agree a lot of the problem is more general issue in philosophy of science / logic / formal epistemology. But definitely relevant to ethics and probably some parts are particular to it.