I’ll be hosting the next Philosophers’ Carnival on June 27 (submit by June 25). Email submission if need be.
Some topics I’d like to see in the submissions:
- How can an objectively true moral ‘ought’ correspond to the ‘is’ of reality?
- Is free will scientifically possible? Is moral responsibility possible without it?
- Respond to this: If the strong sociologist counters with the argument from error, they are affirming a realist premise, since “they rely on the assumption that some past theories were true (or scientifically warranted) despite the weight of received opinion at the time,” (Christopher Norris, Epistemology, Postscript II).
- Respond to this: Admitting that false grounds are false grounds is admitting they are non-justifiers, so that Gettier’s problem examples do not involve instances of justified, true belief, and so do not challenge Plato’s justified-true-belief account of knowledge.
- Does “God commands in accordance with his good nature” and Plato’s justified-true-belief requirement for knowledge show Euthyphro’s Dilemma to be a false one?
- Hume’s fork: What, if any, is the connection between Hume’s is-ought problem (is this really a problem?) and his problem of induction (is this really a problem)? Did he see a connection?
- Why is there something, rather than nothing?
- Why is every major theory in Ethics compared to the Golden Rule in my Intro. to Ethics text, yet the Golden Rule is not considered as a theory in itself? Is this common to introductory Ethics texts?
- Why should any and/or every person care about philosophy?
- Show how your favored theory in Ethics is superior to the others by applying each to a current event or common moral dilemma. Top it off with the first question in this list.
- Feel free to reply to this blog post and submit your own with other good ideas.