1 / 7

Richard Taylor: ON THE ORIGIN OF GOOD AND EVIL

Richard Taylor: ON THE ORIGIN OF GOOD AND EVIL . Morality is not transcendental, but a naturalistic reality. It originates in the fact we have desires and what Taylor calls “felt needs” We are CONATIVE BEINGS If there are no desires , there are no values & no good or evil

ayita
Télécharger la présentation

Richard Taylor: ON THE ORIGIN OF GOOD AND EVIL

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Richard Taylor: ON THE ORIGIN OF GOOD AND EVIL Morality is not transcendental, but a naturalistic reality. It originates in the fact we have desires and what Taylor calls “felt needs” • We are CONATIVE BEINGS • If there are no desires, there are no values & no good or evil • Compare with Hobbes? Nietszche? Plato?

  2. Taylor’s “4 Worlds” Taylor is presents us with 4 worlds to support his argument thatgood/badandgood/evil are tied. to our being Conative, or people with “felt needs”. • He proposes 4 worlds, gradually adding conditions to see what is necessary for good/bad and good/evilto be present in the world. • He make some claims about rationality that we will want to examine carefully.

  3. World One: Imagine the world as it is, but without any living thing capable of reacting to the world • There would be no concept of good/evil • In fact no difference between a beautiful and a harsh world • Nothing is better or worse – it is just a world of facts

  4. World Two: Imagine a world with people like ourselves… rational, intelligent and capable of perception, but these people don’t have needs, purposes or desires. [They are mechanical beings.] • There would still be no concept of good and evil. • QUESTION: How is rationality related to purpose? • Is rationality only true/false & inferences as Taylor seems to suggest? • Is rationality independent of needs?

  5. World Three: Add one sentient being. A being for whom “what he finds makes a difference” [definition of sentient”?] • Now we get the notion of good and evil – but NOT the idea of moral right & wrong. • Furthermore: Good and Evil are absolute to that person. • And there is no sense of “moral obligation” [Why not?]

  6. World Four: Add another sentient being and we get moral right and wrong – Why? • Because aims and purposes can conflict • They both can want the same thing • But their aims and purposes can also coincide [compare with Hobbes]

  7. Right and Wrong are relative to rules In order to satisfy the needs and fulfill goals for more than one person rules are needed. • Rules = ways of behaving/”practices” • The “rational element” is that one choice available avoids an “evil” • Compare with Hobbes? Nietzsche? Plato?

More Related