How I changed my mind about truth | Simon Blackburn full interview 

Do philosophers focus too much on the "hard problem" of consciousness? Leave your thoughts in the comments below. To watch a debate on the topic, head to iai.tv/video/the-key-to-consciousness?RU-vid&

"copy that" means 'message received' in remote communications like radio usually in military context. I've never heard it used in any other way

His comments on being more skeptical in philosophy and cutting through the smoke and mirrors of alleged hard problems is spot on.

Excellent interviewer

Thanks for making this video.

Excellent 👍 first I've heard of Mr Blackburn. Will look into his books on truth.

Thank you.

Kudos to the interviewer for his understanding of Blackburn and his grasp of the topics. As a neo-pragmatist, I am pleased to see that Blackburn has made the obvious step between deflationism about truth to a more general neo-pragmatist stance.

I'm not religious, but this seems like trying to have your cake and eat it too; wanting an objective morality without the "trappings" (his word) of metaphysics. I don't think it's possible.

What is the silver-coloured band and snip of folded paper attached to Blackburn's right wrist? Something medical?

Who does he say with Nietzsche at 25:10?

This was really thought provoking for me. I agree with Blackburn on the abortion case in particular, though I think it's worth adding that while we might say (for example) that after 24-26 weeks, abortion becomes murkier because the element of pain is introduced, in PRACTICE, 99 percent of abortions are performed before this time, with so-called late-term abortions nearly always falling into the category of medical tragedy (such as autocephalitis, etc.). Thus, while a pathocentric moral case could be made that abortion is morally problematic after (I don't know) 30 weeks, in social and legal terms, it makes sense to permit it up to birth since no one is, as the right likes to suggest, aborting a fully formed baby just for the hell of it if they can prevent it. This seems to me to be a position consistent with his views on the murkiness and contestability of the issue, tempered by empirical facts and empathetic concerns.

Morality is about maintaining order=preventing a rising tension. A dilemma comes when order is maintained on one level, while simultaneously creating a rising tension on another level, because the reality of our existence is multi-dimensional this apparent paradox is just the normal state of things. When the tension of maintaining a certain form of order becomes too great, it is equivalent to an intolerable disorder on a different but more relevant level and this disorder must be dissolved by a disordering of the established norm which is creating the tension.

Truly useful thinkers will never go down the "binary" road - insisting that truths are either/or, instead of existing in a complicated world of change. It doesn't require some kind of existential force or figure to acknowledge the practical sensibility of learning to get along, or "do no harm", etc. Living with things being fluid is what grownups do.

"Moral facts like don't exchange sex acts for grades seem obviously true to me but don't you dare ask me to explain how such facts fits into a coherent, plausible metaphysical worldview."

Who is the interviewer here, does anyone know?

How on earth you can have a moral 'fact' that is determined by a transient majority vote escapes me. A lot of things were 'done and dusted' here in Ireland - like medieval laws on abortion, mother and baby homes and the Magdalen laundries - now they aren't so 'done and dusted'.

To say that this is the most presumptuous conversation is an understatement. What do you think anthropologists do? Or biologists? What do you think Jane Goodall did studying chimpanzees for decades? Every animal (and all matter for that matter) has a way of doing things. Raccoons treat each other a certain way and also not in a certain way. Some humans beings in one culture treat each other a certain way and in others they shrink your head after they cut it off.

Ive come to the conclusion after many years of sitting and thinking about these things that sitting and thinking about these things is a total waste of time

Oi give the quasi realism notes which is given by Simon blackburn

The certainty of certainty can definitely be uncertain if it is certain it is? 🙂

Wittgenstein: "Disregard what I said before."

The truth is like a lion, you don’t need to defend it. Let it loose, it will defend itself. St. Augustine

"built on sand" because analytical philosophy adores logic, but does not require the premises of claims to have been themselves proven true in objective reality.

Why go small when you can go infinitesimal? Wow. Philosophy never looked so bullied.

Separate from space and time, objectivity is possible. If you can't separate a situation from space and time, pure objectivity is not possible.

Morality and ethics are, at their core, determined by what is most generally advantageous to the person on evolutionary lines. Not engaging in murder, rape, theft, black mail, etc. is a benefit in general to your ability to remain alive long enough to reproduce. Engaging in what most people would call immoral or unethical behavior raises the chances of you dying early. Millions of years of evolution has hard wired standards of behavior. True people can deviate from the standards, but that just proves the point that their are standards. And while certain immoral acts can be beneficial to you, on the whole these very acts again are more probably going to result in your not being able to reproduce and that is the whole point of and the meaning of, life.

he thinks he can bypass consensus but that is the foundation of all ethics

That you shouldn't offer students different grades for sex is "something that virtually everybody would accept". I agree. But you can pay or work for many kinds of 'unfair' advantage in this world. You can for example pay for 'fast track' and thereby jump the queue at airports. Much less sleazy, of course, and entirely socially acceptable - but is it actually any different in essence? And if one of these is objectively wrong, why is the other not?

Actually, I don't think the example he uses is about moral, but rather about norms, or culture, if I may. You can certainly imagine a society or part of a society where trading sex for goods is acceptable and not considered immoral. Also, historically, there are many examples where powerful people have the right to decide on other peoples' sexual relationships, including for your own benifit. Harems, arranged marriages, droit du signeur, come to mind. Nothing "fact" or "truth" about whether that is acceptable or not on a moral level.

So moral truth via being percolated through both a preponderance of attitude and social dynamics thereon. I think Ayn Rand was here before him for all intents and purposes, no?

Moral facts ''stand firm''? Yes, perhaps pragmatically within the space-time slice of a given society, but not necessarily.

💜

Hey plays it like if you don't agree that you're in a tent with him you're a crazy person. Well what if he doesn't understand the difference between a tent and a tarp?!

If you think there is nothing to say about truth it's because you hold a narrow logical view of truth, that it's no more than a logical operative that allows us to preserve meaning in inferences and generalize over blind inferences, such as "everything he says is true." But truth is a regulatory concept that is necessarily tied to morality. We ought not to deceive each other. If people can get away with deceiving others without any kind of punishment, then they can get away with murder and society fails.

The reason why many thinkers agonize over morality is because they confuse it for love or justice. Morality is the activity of empowering, protecting, or restoring states of innocence. This is a kissing cousin of justice that aims to achieve the most possible expression of fairness. Potecting innocence often becomes a stand-in for justice or love. This is where seeming contradictions occur. So you get the Kantian conundrum of not lying to an ax murderer concerning the whereabouts of his potential victim. Lying is always unjust, but not necessarily immoral. These are not strings of synonyms. The overlap between love, justice, and morality is significant enough to cause this perplexity but divergent enough to have separate domains of consideration. Abortion is immoral because of the incursion of innocence. When advocates of the procedure speak, they do so in defense of a woman's life prospects. This is a justice argument. I'm not even addressing the validity of that position as much as I am saying that rhetoric belongs in court, but not before venues of morality. Love is the coordination of justice and morality for accomplishing the optimal harmony between parties. This is always a personal motivation. The reason why philosophy mangles truth is because it tries to bundle separate problems. In other words, finding the fastest or most economical car wash does not mean you found the cleanest one. THREE RELATED BUT SEPERATE CONCERNS.

Does consciousness have objective existence? Where: Objective: Existing independently of consciousness. Subjective: Existence is dependent on consciousness. If consciousness has objective existence, how can it exist independently of itself?

"Copy that" means "heard and understood".

I treat morality as a capacity, rather than as a fact. A moral is simply a lesson learned, and a greater capacity for learning lessons implies a greater capacity for moral thought. An individual can be a moral agent, but also groups of people can act as moral agents, and you could probably even find examples of inanimate moral agents. Treating morals as facts, I think misunderstands the problem. Usually the more important question is what do your morals accomplish?

Don't envy him having all that grass to cut.

What do we mean by 'our'? We decide what is moral on the basis of 'our' values. That is practically an objective fact. Scientific facts are practically objective in much the same way.

Morals, rules and regulations evolved and emerged from animal codes of conduct. Animal codes of conduct evolved and emerged from simple life as they, morals, codes and behaviour regulations preserved and maximised strength of species. To maximise potential force of existence in the force yield force nature of the universe that evolved and emerged into life.

It would have been interesting to know why Simon Blackburn rejects an atomistic approach, when to do so would seem to create a schism between science and how he conceives of philosophy. In other comments Simon Blackburn would appear to favour a science based philosophy, at least that is what I understand from his comments about the mind and the so called 'hard' problem of consciousness, though admittedly he did not describe discussions along these lines as indulgence in dualism. I liked his example (discussing objectivity) of an investigation following a false accusation, however although I sense Simon Blackburn is very reluctant to accept moral realism, it does seem to me that using this example does imply moral realism (i.e. the example works on the premiss that the accusation was indeed false).

how did david CAMERON GET A 1st in political science and philosophy

I must take exception to the example he gave ' sex for grades'; apparently this has and does happen; as such, some people do in FACT approve of it (those who participate) and that in a nutshell is the metaphysics of morality - its what people do that makes moral truth not what they say - and they do terrible things, don't they. Morality is just a set of loosely defined guidelines with exceptions for those who except themselves and required of everyone else. As such it is not a serious area for philosophical inquiry. Monkeys are compassionate sometimes and brutal other times. Kant and many others failed to come up with any basis for morality that can be agreed upon by all philosophers in the way that all scientists agree that opposite charges attract. Language is not the problem here. We decide what is moral and what is not. Morality is totally fluid and spectral and relative, Law is another thing all together.

1:08 "Simon Blackbum"

A moral fact is the future harmful or beneficial social consequences of a present deed; moral truth is about the future social harm or benefit of a present deed. Therefore, the acceptance of moral truth depends on society's ability to predict social harm and/or benefit. Unfortunately, science has made progress towards the prediction of physical phenomena more than towards the prediction of social harm and benefit. That is why the acceptance of moral truth is so problematic, especially today. More efforts and funding are necessary in the mentioned direction in social science.

When you are confronted with your accrued karma, you will understand what is & isn't moral. That confrontation does not take place on the material plane.

📍18:41 2📍11:11

Interesting discussion… However, I truly fail to see how you are able to escape committing yourself onto the slippery slope of moral relativism… So, when you posit a value judgement about anything - do you JUDGE something to be right/wrong (in which case you’re being entirely arbitrary), or do you RECOGNISE something to be right/wrong (in which case, you in fact concede that there is something like objective right/wrong…) (thank Euthyphro!) There is however an unargued philosophical tension in your reasoning - you are absolutely certain that there is no Absolute…

I do not believe in morale facts, however we do poses a sense of guilt which is interpreting something.

I might help if you bring culture into the discussion. Many moral "facts" are taboos. I think X is wrong because all my friends and relatives do and so did previous generations stretching past all remembrance. Today teachers sleeping with their students is taboo, in ancient Greece not so much.

Blackburn's perspective is complicated for sure. But does not give one any solid grasp or grounding for moral reality and moral decision making. He himself is having difficulty explaining what he's trying to say. It's moral murkiness.

The factual bottom line basis on which all moral facts are based is the prevalence of the instinct of survival which, in the human species, means the survival of the group over and above that of the individual. And as the group progresses, so do the sets of moral principles.

Yes, we'll have a middle ground, a nice British post-Christian christiany middle ground. The kind of bourgeois pablum that was turning Nietzsche's stomach a century and a half ago.

Remember simon holds a Quasi Metaethic view, that ethical statements are not real properties, but just emotion. essentially he is a pragmatist, but also means he subscribes to Moral non realism.

If there is no outside Government ( like a God ) imposing a moral law upon us, then what we see as good and bad and right and wrong and better and worse is subject to what we want. The judgment of the greatest number of People most generally wins.

Moral is founded in our biology, not in reason or metaphysics. It is a set of feelings that regulate normal people and indeed also many animals socially. Moral guides our behaviour towards our own offspring, our partner or partners, the society we live in, friends and foes. Evolutionary psychology explains moral very well, I think. See Jonathan Heidt, David Buss, Frans de Waal, and others.

Metaphysics are back

I don't think morality is fundamental to the fabric of reality, I think it's an emergent property of the universe that exists because we exist, and given the diversity and similarities of our material and informatic make ups (from genetic to memetic), ofc there are going to be some moral differences, and some moral "universalities", but there isn't going to be one single universal morality, to humans or bears. To me, it makes little sense to try and make an "objective" and "subjective" distinction in many cases, it's much more complicated than that.

Morality is changeable. We don't see public hanging as moral anymore. There are things most people see as perfectly moral nowadays our ancestors wouldn't have and things we have no moral issues with that future generations will have problems with. Where does its changeability leave morality in terms of truth and fact?

How do we know he is being truthful?

🐟 03. CONCEPTS Vs THE TRUTH: The term “TRUTH” is a grossly misused word. Anything which has ever been written or spoken, by even the greatest sage or Avatar (incarnation of Divinity), including every single postulation within this Holy Scripture, is merely a CONCEPT and not “The Truth”, as defined further down. A concept is either accurate or inaccurate. Virtually all concepts are inaccurate to a degree. However, some concepts are far more accurate than others. A belief is an unhealthy and somewhat problematic relationship one has with a certain concept, due to misapprehension of life as it is, objectively-speaking. Attachment to beliefs, particularly in the presumption of individual free-will, is the cause of psychological suffering. For example, the personal conception of the Ultimate Reality (God or The Goddess) is inaccurate to a large extent (see Chapter 07). The concept of Ultimate Reality being singular (“All is One”) is far more accurate. The transcendence of BOTH the above concepts (non-duality) is excruciatingly accurate. However, none of these concepts is “The Truth” as such, since all ideas are relative, whilst The Truth is absolute. It is VITALLY important to distinguish between relative truth and Absolute Truth. Relative truth is temporal, mutable, subjective, dependent, immanent, differentiated, conditioned, finite, complex, reducible, imperfect, and contingent, whilst Absolute Truth is eternal, immutable, objective, independent, transcendent, undifferentiated, unconditional, infinite, non-dual (i.e. simple), irreducible, perfect, and non-contingent. Absolute Truth is the ground of all being (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit), and is prior to any mind, matter, name, form, intent, thought, word, or deed. Good and bad are RELATIVE - what may be good or bad can vary according to temporal circumstances and according to personal preferences. For example, there is absolutely no doubt that citrus fruits are a good source of nutrients for human beings. However, it may be bad to consume such beneficial foods when one is experiencing certain illnesses, such as chronic dysentery. 'One man's food is another man's poison.' Because of the relative nature of goodness, anything which is considered to be good must also be bad to a certain degree, since the extent of goodness is determined by the purpose of the object in question. As demonstrated, citrus fruits can be either good or bad, depending on its use. Is drinking arsenic good or bad? Well, if one wishes to remain alive, it is obviously bad, but for one who wishes to die, it is obviously good. However, beyond the dichotomy of good and bad, is the Eternal Truth, which transcends mundane relativism. Therefore, the goal of life is to rise above the subjective “good” and “bad”, and abide in the transcendental sphere. A qualified spiritual preceptor is able to guide one in the intricacies of such transcendence. Such a person, who has transcended mundane relative truth, is said to be an ENLIGHTENED soul. When making moral judgments, it is more appropriate to use the terms “holy/evil” or “righteous/unrighteous”, rather than “good/bad” or “right/wrong”. As the Bard of Avon so rightly declared in the script for one of his plays, there is nothing which is intrinsically either good or bad but “thinking makes it so”. At the time of writing (early twenty-first century), especially in the Anglosphere, most persons seem to use the dichotomy of “good/evil” rather than “good/bad” and “holy/evil”, most probably because they consider that “holiness” is exclusively a religious term. However, the terms “holy” and “righteous” are fundamentally synonymous, for they refer to a person or an act which is fully in accordance with pure, holy, and righteous principles (“dharma”, in Sanskrit). So a holy person is one who obeys the law of “non-harm” (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and as the ancient Sanskrit axiom states: “ahiṃsa paramo dharma” (non-violence is the highest moral virtue or law). The ONLY real (Absolute) Truth in the phenomenal manifestation is the impersonal sense of “I am” (“ahaṃ”, in Sanskrit). Everything else is merely transient and unreal (“unreal” for that very reason - because it is ever-mutating, lacking permanence and stability). This sense of quiddity is otherwise called “Infinite Awareness”, “Spirit”, “God”, “The Ground of Being”, “Necessary Existence“, “The Higher Self”, as well as various other epithets, for it is the very essence of one's being. Chapters 06 and 10 deal more fully with this subject matter. Of course, for one who is fully self-realized and enlightened, the subject-object duality has collapsed. Therefore, a fully-awakened individual does not perceive any REAL difference between himself and the external world, and so, sees everything in himself, and himself in everything. If it is true that there are none so blind as those who don’t WANT to see, and none so deaf as those who don’t WANT to hear, then surely, there are none so ignorant as those who don’t WANT to learn the truth. OBVIOUSLY, in the previous paragraph, and in most other references to the word “truth” within this booklet, it is meant “the most accurate concept possible”, or at least “an extremely accurate fact”. For example, as clearly demonstrated in Chapters 21 and 22, it is undoubtedly “true” that a divinely-instituted monarchy is the most beneficial form of national governance, but that is not the Absolute Truth, which is the impersonal, never-changing ground of all being. So, to put it succinctly, all “truths” are relative concepts (even if they are very accurate) but the Universal Self alone is REAL (Absolute) Truth. “In the absence of both the belief 'I am the body' and in the absence of the belief that 'I am not the body', what is left is what we really are. We don't need to define what we really are. We don't need to create a thought to tell us what we are. What we are is what TRUTH is." ************* “God is not something 'out-there', 'looking-in', but God (or Source) has BECOME all of This. So, God is the Underlying Principle of all of this - the Energy or the Consciousness. The (psycho-physical) manifestation has arisen within Consciousness as an imagination in the mind of Source.” Roger Castillo, Australian Spiritual Teacher, 15/07/2015. “I am the TRUTH...” “...and the TRUTH shall set you free”. Lord Jesus Christ, John 14:16 and 8:32.

"A wholistic way without foundations." Give me a break. His whole talk circles around a "moral sphere" container which establishes the moral fact. A totally circular argument. Wittgenstein I believe was quoting Nietzsche "There are no moral facts but only moral interpretations."

There’s no reason to even care about the Truth, in principle, unless you’re of the faithful [a Muslim or Christian]

What a lovely man. I about fell off my chair, when as soon as he said he didn't go for that metaphysics voodoo, in his next sentence, he jumped into a metaphysical thesis. Then, I almost quit, when, right off the bat he began with a contradiction doubled over out both ends. I thought to myself, "Do I look for a film noire again, I just watched one, or maybe some alien attack movie, or do I stick with this fabulous codger and see how he digs himself out, or more likely, further in?" At least he knows what a woman is. So far. The interviewer needs to read at least a watered down history of philosophy text, so he doesn't sound like an idiot. Codger can't get his point across, between dangling analogies, and spurious connections, my cereal gone all soggy. Interviewer: "Given the utter subjective quagmire my denial has deposited me, how do I rectify thinking say "MURDER IS WRONG" How do I know?" Shmuck. Again read some philosophy idiot, do us a favor. Stop throwing out authors names, it's not enough. Putz. The Codger I'm sure he came to the tent with a point to make, but he's a glass of wine to the good. Quote?

The problem of facts only being set against a bench mark such as God, is that religious understanding of such texts is changeable and rather subjective and although that wouldn't disprove the premise that a failure in our understanding of such a benchmark doesn't devalue it's objectivity, yet there isn't a shred of none anecdotal evidence for God's existence. So, a probably non-existent diety with variable and changing interpretations of it's will is a measurable benchmark for objective truth is exceptionally poor.

Whether we like it or not, people are born unequal, that is, with different human characteristics distributed unequally, at the individual level, at birth. Among those inequalities are IQ, physical strength, and sex appeal. But at the same time, all human beings have the same basic needs to satisfy, i.e. food, shelter, health, sex, relationships, etc. To satisfy these needs, the only thing we have available, at the individual level, are those characteristics with which we were born. As human beings, we have to make use of the characteristics that come with our body to satisfy the needs that arise from possessing that same body. Imagine now a very simplified society composed of the following three people: The "attractive" : has a very high sex appeal, a medium IQ and very little physical strength The "strong": has a lot of physical strength, a medium IQ and a very low sex appeal The "smart": has a very high IQ, very little physical strength and a very low sex appeal. In that society, the only available shelter is located in caves at a very high altitude (it takes a lot of physical energy to get there every day), and obtaining food requires a lot of physical strength, for example walking 25 km a day and fighting with fierce animals. In that society, the "strong" imposes the rule that 50% of the food that is obtained is for him, since he is the one not only in conditions to contribute more, but to impose the conditions. Leaving the distribution of food at 25% for the "attractive", 50% for the "strong", and 25% for the "smart". Then, in that society, this "moral fact" would be considered "evident" and "indisputable", and if you do not accept it, you would be considered "suspicious". Now imagine the following alternative scenarios in this society: 1. The "attractive" negotiates with the "strong" for 5% more food in exchange for sex. Leaving the distribution of food at 30% for the "attractive", 50% for the "strong", and 20% for the "smart". So, in that society, with the "moral fact" that 50% of the food is for the strong, "grades for sex" is being exchanged from the perspective of the "smart". 2. The "smart" develops a tool that allows the "strong" to obtain the same amount of food in less time, thus allowing him to have more free time. The "smart" negotiates with the "strong" for 5% more food in exchange for keeping that tool operational. Leaving the distribution of food at 20% for the "attractive", 50% for the "strong", and 30% for the "smart". So, in that society, with the "moral fact" that 50% of the food is for the strong, "grades for sex" is being exchanged from the perspective of the "attractive". What should be quite evident from the above example is that in a totally material world, the "moral facts" are established by the people with the most advantageous characteristics in that world. And what these "moral facts" are going to do is establish, explicitly or implicitly, the principle that those people with the greatest advantages, for this world, are the ones who have priority in attending to their needs, regardless, if necessary, that it is to the detriment of the rest. Today, we have a society where the "moral fact" is that it is considered abuse to use physical force or sexual attractiveness to gain advantage, while it is considered right to use IQ to gain advantage. Which of course benefits the "smart" to the detriment of the "attractive" or the "strong", all of that in the name of "education" or "academic standards" (which of course are developed by the "smart"). Once again, in a purely material world, those who have the most advantageous characteristics, for a given context (world), are the ones that will end up imposing the "moral facts", and these "moral facts" will mainly benefit those who obtained those advantageous characteristics in the cosmic lottery. So, despite all the Mr. Blackburn's verbiage (or sophistry), there are only two alternatives: A. Reality has a natural order imprinted from which morality emanates, and that natural order is the Truth that we have to discover B. Reality is matter and pure randomness, beyond that there is nothing. So, we are the ones who impose the final order, and that order will always be imposed by those with the advantageous characteristics for a given context, and that would be the Truth to be established (not discovered).

The imposition of political power to enforce a philosophical point of view is a reality of our time. Orwell showed us the danger or "right-think" becoming law, with enforcement power of the law behind it. It appears to me, as I get older, this has become the most important social issue.

"Let God be true and every man a liar." Since it's all a matter of opinion, that's my opinion. When you choose a rock to build upon, choose wisely.

Is it just me or is my boy Simon all over the place with his answers? I mean he obviously has a strong academic background, but I almost felt that he himself wasn't very confident in his own answers, especially when it came to talking about his weird synthesis of objective and subjective morality. I mean it might be the wear of his age, but still strange considering that his field is meta-ethics. No hate though!

Everything petal of flower that comes out of every human mouth has a material base. Ignore historical materialism but the truth could be a victim

So sloppy. He takes "university" as an ultimate given of some kind. If you read Nozick, you may see that "university" is also not a fact. There is a contract between people that will differ. If the contract (meaning agreement) between the participants (staff and customers) is that you cannot trade grades for sex, then _by definition_ it is a violation of the agreement to do this. If on the other hand is is allowed to do this, then it is not a violation of the agreement. So there is a debate about this, and him saying there isn't is just wrong.

If its a class in how to have sex it could be the practicum.

We routinely allow university professors to sell better grades for sex; it is not a "self evident" moral fact. Here is why: legacy admissions in elite universities rely on sex-marriage contracts. People and families routinely marry - trade sex for property and prestige access - as a vehicle of social advancement including advancement through schooling, leaving more deserved students displaced despite greater merit. The problem with these "self-evident" moral facts is they rely on deeper presumptions of cultural norms, and merely drives the ethical debate underground through normalization of power and privilege based social arrangements.

It doesn't matter a hill of beans how many degrees you have. Nothing minimizes your ability to lie to yourself except a metaphysical love relationship with the truth which essentially changes your nature.

Morality is fundamentally social, so if everyone agrees to follow the rule: Do not commit murder, then murder is wrong. Morality is universal, it applies to every competent adult. Ethics, on the other hand, the pursuit of the "good life", is up for grabs, and basically relative to situations, environments, and cultures. It is not universal but really up to each individual to choose how they live. This is not true of morality. I '

This is being intellectually dishonest with language. If you see a concert and you say that was good, that is a lie. What you really mean is I enjoyed that and the other person did as well. If you think there is some connection between a personal opinion and objective truth, you’re nuts.

Discussion of truth by one who "rejects metaphysics" is preposterous. As is speaking of the metaphysical as if it were not the logical investigation of concepts, but a kind of presumptuous theology or self-deification. Metaphysics is the philosophical topos 'in' which such discussions are transacted since Aristotle defined the concept. What does Blackburn imagine he is doing, a form of social psychology?!

Take humans out of the picture. We are to close to the subject matter. Observe animals interacting and apply morals based on their goals.

His example of a moral "fact" is nothing of the sort. Should professors give better grades in exchange for sex? No they shouldn't, because of a host of consequences that vast majority of people would agree are negative. But nowhere can you reduce those personal preferences and opinions down to a fact that makes it clear that professors should never exchange sex for better grades.

"Copy that" means primarily that you've received a message. The fact that you're just acknowledging without dissenting at least suggests some degree of acquiescence. "Truth" means 'that which you could in principle be mistaken about', as contrasted with matters of taste. One can, and many people do, regard our agreement about the idea of a professor bartering grades for sex as a matter of shared revulsion rather than as a matter of truth. On abortion, there is no room for reasonable disagreement between the two sides, at least within the United States. The authoritarian position is entirely wrong and entirely rooted in authoritarianism rather than in any honest consideration of the morality of the situation. There's plenty of room for disagreement within the pro-choice side -- but not much reason for it within the United States, given that the authoritarian side has already won the brute-force contest to actually decide the matter.

Truth is a gradient, based on darwinian fitness.

The middle path of Buddha and the fluidity of Taoism are instructive. And this too will pass.

Couldn't he have come to the same conclusion many years ago if he just studied sociology?

Gggg

This is such ridiculously bad philosophy. "Having sex with students for higher grades is bad" is not any kind of fact at all. It's just your preference. Just because many people have the same preference as you does not make it any more of a fact.

It was moral for human sacrifice in the Aztec world and it was immoral in the Christian world

One scientifically research the material base of why a professor offering grades for sex is “immoral”. It is always the mode of production. RIP Marx.

I love intellectuals birthed and nursed in the Christian West, who imagine this great Civilization they enjoy, from whom they’ve received a vast and incalculable inheritance, philosophical and material, yet imagine the world in which they live is the product or chance. Worse, they claim it’s a product of oppression, Colonialism, mercantilism, etc., etc. In both cases it’s difficult to understand how anyone could be so willfully blind.

The abortion discussion "cutoff" point analogy to car speed ignores the fact that different jurisdictions have different speed limits. The problem with this interview is that the interviewer is unable to press the guest to be more discerning and precise. This is just a mismatched interview. The abortion speed limit analogy is not a defined position it is a poor analogy that needs critical interrogation by the host, which is not forthcoming. Just off the top of my head the speed limit analogy is not apt because road safety isnt just life or death. Also there are many arguments made against road safety speed legislation based on the vast safety superiority of public transit, which makes "how fast is safe" hardly self evident when the answer should be "auto traffic on roads is never safe we should transition to public transit trains pedestrian friendly cities bikes and a society that doesnt rely on speed and profit and competition to allow people to travel at safer speeds." The interviewer is just snowed under by the guest's weak positions and never questions more deeply - even in such a hotly discussed area as abortion we are not given any kind of depth. To continue the abortion debate we could for example say "all abortion is wrong" and then say "all coercive pregnancy is wrong as well" and therefore end up with "we need policy to prevent unwanted pregnancy and therefore prevent abortion in the first place." Such an argument relies nowhere on moral certitude or fact only political dialogue between competing subjective positions to find shared interest and resulting agreeable policy. The problem with the abortion debate primarily is that the "abortion is murder" side will also disingenuously not support birth control anti poverty empowerment of women reproductive health etc etc to prevent unwanted pregnancy to begin with. Failing to prove or explore just ends up with a shallow interview.

Disappointingly shallow conversation

Morality lies with the woman, she is the only person that has the authority to decide because she is the only petso to carry the burdon, others have zero connection. You can refuse to abort a healthy baby, but you cannot force her not to use a hanger to abort if she decides it is morally reasonable.

fallacies of the heap

This approach is shallow and unfounded. It shows how to be a philosopher without much reading in philosophy …

It is all a matter of opinion, are the words of a pervert.

Drifted from epistemology to left wing politics a couple times, otherwise great

bit arid innit

Captain obvious with a British accent. Don’t waste your time

Without morality and ethics must give rise to more suffering in the world and a return to being cave men. Surely, man as a product of higher intelligence is driven to improve standards and conditions of life, total freedom without restraints is an imprisonment to a life not worth living.