A couple of weeks ago I promised that I would write a Sweet Talk post about this article on helping children develop good moral reasoning skills. Well, I have finally made good on my promise. You can find "Theory and Practice, Episode Four" at Sweet Talk Conversation at this link.
This marks the probable final episode in a series that was written to articulate the present state of my moral philosophy. If I had to summarize the whole series, it would go something like this:
The problem with philosophy is that it offers us a type of analysis that is often poorly specified, both in terms of the question, and the answer. As a result, we often lose sight of the fact that the what we are really looking for is results. In the realm of moral philosophy, "results" means outcomes in our daily lives that correspond to great levels of happiness, closer social bonding, and greater levels of mental health both for the person facing a moral decision and all those people who will be affected by the outcome of that decision. We could do a better job if we simply turned greater attention to the results of our moral code, and spent less time getting caught up in the poorly specified antics of academic philosophy. A robust psychological literature appears to validate this position, and we should take this literature for what it's worth.
That's the short form of the argument, anyway. You can find the details here:
This marks the probable final episode in a series that was written to articulate the present state of my moral philosophy. If I had to summarize the whole series, it would go something like this:
The problem with philosophy is that it offers us a type of analysis that is often poorly specified, both in terms of the question, and the answer. As a result, we often lose sight of the fact that the what we are really looking for is results. In the realm of moral philosophy, "results" means outcomes in our daily lives that correspond to great levels of happiness, closer social bonding, and greater levels of mental health both for the person facing a moral decision and all those people who will be affected by the outcome of that decision. We could do a better job if we simply turned greater attention to the results of our moral code, and spent less time getting caught up in the poorly specified antics of academic philosophy. A robust psychological literature appears to validate this position, and we should take this literature for what it's worth.
That's the short form of the argument, anyway. You can find the details here:
No comments:
Post a Comment