3 ms·
That's not completely true. You have to separate universal moral framework from a relativist system. In this case is-ought doesn't come in to play (as Hume hims
by Locke1689 16y ago
That's not completely true. You have to separate universal moral framework from a relativist system. In this case is-ought doesn't come in to play (as Hume himself acknowledged in the answer to the question of induction). I'm more focused in epistemology myself but I also happen to be a Hume nut.
- jessriedel 16y agoMaybe you can educate me here. Once you've crossed the relativist bridge, doesn't the study of morality just become anthropology, not philosophy?
- Locke1689 16y agoSure. Nietzsche was one of the first to approach this subject. In "The Gay Science" he built out the ethical self-actualization as a rejection of nihilism. Later existentialists (Camus, Sarte) did the same thing but attempted to connect it on a more human basis with freedom. Some even approached the same question with a theological perspective (Kierkegaard). The phenomenologists wanted us to throw everything we thought we knew about existence and morality out the window, so I'm not even going to touch on Hiedegger et al (if you're interested you can slave your way through Zein und Seit yourself). The Neo-Kantians endeavor to correct the mistakes Kant made following the CI and deal more with a "personal" CI, if you will (quite complicated, can't explain in a few sentences). Overall, I think that's a pretty good reading list to start with. You should probably read this[1] as an introduction, as well as [2]. Remember though: philosophy almost never comes up with correct answers, it only shows which answers are almost definitely wrong. [1] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaethics/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaethics/ [2] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/