I think you're reifying: because the word "vice" exists, you assume the thing it denotes exists. Surely 1-3 call the existence of vice into question as much as physicalism.
Of course it wouldn't convince the hard-nosed physicalist, but most people aren't one anyway. And unless one has a firm prior conviction that physicalism must be true one is confronted with the question whether it is more plausible that vices are blameworthy or that physicalism is true. Given our moral and normative faculties, the former option will be convincing to significantly more people.
Right, but you seem to be saying that it comes down to what your prior belief is. An argument that isn't capable of changing anyone's prior belief is a waste of time.
In most physicalism, things can supervene on the physical. So vice only would supervene on negative physical bodily functions in these, which isn’t equivalent to 1.
Alex
ReplyDeleteWhat would be your argument for 3?
Just common-sense intuition. Or maybe the idea that sickness does not deserve blame (though getting sick can), while vice seems to deserve blame?
ReplyDeleteAlex
ReplyDeleteBut if physicalism is true, vice does not deserve blame.
I think you're reifying: because the word "vice" exists, you assume the thing it denotes exists. Surely 1-3 call the existence of vice into question as much as physicalism.
ReplyDeleteOf course it wouldn't convince the hard-nosed physicalist, but most people aren't one anyway. And unless one has a firm prior conviction that physicalism must be true one is confronted with the question whether it is more plausible that vices are blameworthy or that physicalism is true. Given our moral and normative faculties, the former option will be convincing to significantly more people.
ReplyDeleteOr to put it bluntly, arguments like the one above aren't supposed to work on the David Papineaus of this world
ReplyDeleteRight, but you seem to be saying that it comes down to what your prior belief is. An argument that isn't capable of changing anyone's prior belief is a waste of time.
ReplyDeleteIn most physicalism, things can supervene on the physical. So vice only would supervene on negative physical bodily functions in these, which isn’t equivalent to 1.
ReplyDeleteAndrew,
ReplyDeleteI didn't say that. I merely pointed out that some will rather deny that vices or anything similar have a normative reality to them