Peter Singer: The Triviality of Is-Ought in Morality

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4149
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Peter Singer: The Triviality of Is-Ought in Morality

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Jul 07, 2020 9:12 am

Peter Singer: The Triviality of Is-Ought in Morality [proper].

Posters like Flasher, Peter Holmes, Sculptor, IC and their likes are making a mountain out of a molehill and too much noise with this 'Is-Ought' dichotomy.

In this article; Peter Singer argued, the 'Is-Ought' dichotomy is trivial and "toothless" to moral issues;
Peter Singer wrote:I shall argue that the differences between the contending parties are terminological, and that there are various possible terminologies, none of which has, on balance, any great advantage over any other terminology.

It follows that the disputes over the definition of morality and over the "is-ought" problem are disputes over words which raise no really significant issues.

The dispute between the neutralist and the descriptivist, therefore, is a dispute about where, within a limited framework, morality shall be placed. – i.e. fact or action.

So instead of continuing to regard these issues as central, moral philosophers could, I believe, "agree to disagree" about the "is-ought" problem,
and about the definition of morality, provided only that everyone was careful to stipulate how he was using the term "moral" and was aware of the implications and limitations of the definition he was using.
Moral philosophers could then move on to consider more important issues.
It is not practical to provide all the details for his justifications.
The above conclusions are justified in the article.

The Content [not given] I abstracted are as follows;
  • CONTENT
    Introduction
    Two Extreme Views on Morality
    1. Neutralism
    ........Neutralist’s Moral Principles are Overriding
    ........Moral Principle Held = Way he Acts - Actions
    2. Descriptivism [naturalism]
    ........Links Moral Principles to Action
    Reconciliation of the Two Views
    ........Neutralism Do Not Differ with Descriptivism on how Facts are connected with Reason
    A Middle Position [3]
    Above are Three Positions Considered
    Conclusion
Do you agree with Peter Singer, a very reputable Moral Philosopher.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

Views??

Impenitent
Posts: 2824
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Peter Singer: The Triviality of Is-Ought in Morality

Post by Impenitent » Tue Jul 07, 2020 3:38 pm

singer argues that the amount of pain suffered by the hunger of thousands of carnivorous insects is greater than your child's pain when being eaten alive by the same carnivorous insects... it is more moral for you to feed the insects

-Imp

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4149
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Peter Singer: The Triviality of Is-Ought in Morality

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Wed Jul 08, 2020 2:49 am

Impenitent wrote:
Tue Jul 07, 2020 3:38 pm
singer argues that the amount of pain suffered by the hunger of thousands of carnivorous insects is greater than your child's pain when being eaten alive by the same carnivorous insects... it is more moral for you to feed the insects

-Imp
If that is the case, I would disagree.
Where did he say that?

I don't have to agree with every view from Singer.
I will agree to any proposition that is soundly and rationally justified like the one in the OP by Singer or by another.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests