Ethics is about how you should conduct yourself. That has branches: sexual ethics, say, is about how you should conduct yourself sexually, and epistemology is about how you should conduct yourself doxastically.
I think it would be an extremely useful exercise to get, say, a hundred prominent philosophers to make diagrams like this, and then compare notes.
In my own thinking I have come to think of more and more philosophy as fundamentally questions about (broadly) what to do. So, ethics in some maximally general sense.
For example: You can think of "free will" as the control condition (i.e. absence of "force") on moral responsibility. And you can answer the question of "who should we hold morally responsible?" by answering "Who would it be useful/productive/reasonable to hold morally responsible?" or "What is the point of holding people morally responsible for their actions, and what criteria would best serve that point?" Then the whole question of free will looks less like metaphysics and more like ethics.
My diagram is about the order of explanation. In the order of knowledge, ethics is close to the top. The right ontology is the one that generates the right ethics.
It would be interesting to see whether or not there is some connection between given ethical frameworks and the epistemological theories philosophers hold. It's easy to link virtue ethics and virtue epistemology, since most virtue epistemologists do so explicitly. But what about other frameworks? Something like Quinean Natuarlized Epistemology or coherentism seems to almost cry out for a utilitarian grounding. Perhaps a rationalist approach would be more deontological?
Where is philosophy of language in your view? For instance, Kripke seems to think it has a wide impact on various debates. Or does the fact that you lean towards a Fregean view mean it isn't as important?
I am about to delete a comment that says: "Thank you very much for sharing a detailed view that will make me able to understand different things for writing my thesis with help of PhD dissertation writing services" (and where the last four words are hyperlinked). But this bit of spam was too delicious to allow to disappear completely, so I'm quoting it for posterity.
9 comments:
I have some major gripes, but I think the overall concept is and presentation are very cool!
I'll just ask about one of the gripes: Why on Earth is "Epistemology" under "Ethics"??
Ethics is about how you should conduct yourself. That has branches: sexual ethics, say, is about how you should conduct yourself sexually, and epistemology is about how you should conduct yourself doxastically.
I think it would be an extremely useful exercise to get, say, a hundred prominent philosophers to make diagrams like this, and then compare notes.
In my own thinking I have come to think of more and more philosophy as fundamentally questions about (broadly) what to do. So, ethics in some maximally general sense.
For example: You can think of "free will" as the control condition (i.e. absence of "force") on moral responsibility. And you can answer the question of "who should we hold morally responsible?" by answering "Who would it be useful/productive/reasonable to hold morally responsible?" or "What is the point of holding people morally responsible for their actions, and what criteria would best serve that point?" Then the whole question of free will looks less like metaphysics and more like ethics.
My diagram is about the order of explanation. In the order of knowledge, ethics is close to the top. The right ontology is the one that generates the right ethics.
It would be interesting to see whether or not there is some connection between given ethical frameworks and the epistemological theories philosophers hold. It's easy to link virtue ethics and virtue epistemology, since most virtue epistemologists do so explicitly. But what about other frameworks? Something like Quinean Natuarlized Epistemology or coherentism seems to almost cry out for a utilitarian grounding. Perhaps a rationalist approach would be more deontological?
Where is philosophy of language in your view? For instance, Kripke seems to think it has a wide impact on various debates. Or does the fact that you lean towards a Fregean view mean it isn't as important?
I forgot philosophy of language. I've renamed "Political philosophy" and now found a place for philosophy of language.
I am about to delete a comment that says: "Thank you very much for sharing a detailed view that will make me able to understand different things for writing my thesis with help of PhD dissertation writing services" (and where the last four words are hyperlinked). But this bit of spam was too delicious to allow to disappear completely, so I'm quoting it for posterity.
Post a Comment