+0
I'm constrasting "morality" with something else, and I don't know how to call them. I mean, I don't know what common name I should give to both morality and the other term of the constrast. Hope this will become clear by looking at the examples below:

1) "This kind of ethical skepticism does not call into question all beliefs, but arises from a constrat between morality and some other system of beliefs about the world that cannot be undermined by skepticism".

Also, should I say "set of beliefs" instead of "system of beliefs"?

2) "Smith's view is, then, that ethical skepticism is local because it is based upon a contrast between morality and some other conception of the world which describes it in itself".

3) "The view that Bett rejects is the one which asserts that skepticism about morality rests on the adoption of a non-skeptical attitude towards some other way of looking at the world, and not necessarily towards science."

4) "From the fact that, to be skeptical about morality, one need not be non-skeptical about every other area, Bett invadly infers that, to be skeptical about morality, one need not be non-skeptical about any other area. That is to say, to deny the objectivity of morality, it is not necessary to have confidence in the objectivity of sciences and common sense and any other way of looking at the world; but it does not follow from this that, to deny the objectivity of morality, one need not be certain about the objectivity of at least some other way of looking at the world."

I add two more doubts which do not belong to the previous set of examples:

5) "The Pyrrhonist does not rule out the possibility of ever finding an assertion or set of assertions that could meet the Dogmatists' conditions for justified beliefs".

6) "He is as agnostic in the other fields as he is in ethics".

I just wanna know if these two last sentences sound ok.

Thank you in advance,

Sextus.
1 2
Comments  
Hi,

Your choices basically seem OK to me. Any argument about them really starts to become a philosophical discussion, which is what you want anyway.

Would you want to try contrasting morality to a system of ethics?

5) "The Pyrrhonist does not rule out the possibility of ever finding an assertion or set of assertions that could meet the Dogmatists' conditions for justified beliefs". OK

6) "He is as agnostic in the other fields as he is in ethics". 1. You are using the definite article, so I hope you have previously specified what the other fields are. 2. You are comparing 'other fields vs. ethics'. I wonder if you should perhaps say '...the field of ethics'?

Best wishes, Clive
I'm contrasting morality with science (natural and social), common sense, etc.

Regarding 6), I could probably say "He is agnostic about all beliefs, and not only about ethical ones". Or something like that. What do you think?

What about the following example

"In ethics, as in all other areas, he finds conflicts between..."?

Cheers,

Sextus
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Hi,

Yes, these ideas seem fine to me.

Clive
1) "This kind of ethical skepticism does not call into question all beliefs, but arises from a constrat between morality and some other system of beliefs about the world that cannot be undermined by skepticism".

Also, should I say "set of beliefs" instead of "system of beliefs"?

I wonder whether "morality" is a precise enough term here. If we're contrasting it with "science" or "common sense", we run into the problem that "morality" is embedded in both.

Is it a particular kind of morality that is to be contrasted?

MrP

2) "Smith's view is, then, that ethical skepticism is local because it is based upon a contrast between morality and some other conception of the world which describes it in itself".
Just to clarify: does "it" here refer back to "world"?
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
I'm wondering now whether we can say "objectivity of morality". It might imply "the objectivity of the moral view of the world"; whereas I think you mean "the objective existence of morality".

Maybe:

4) "From the fact that, to be skeptical about morality, one need not be non-skeptical about every other area, Bett invalidly infers that, to be skeptical about morality, one need not be non-skeptical about any other area. That is to say, to deny the objective existence of morality, it is not necessary to have confidence in the objective existence of science and common sense and any other way of looking at the world; but it does not follow from this that, to deny the objective existence of morality, one need not be certain about the objective existence of at least some other way of looking at the world."

MrP
In #5, I'm not sure about "conditions for justified beliefs". What would it mean, in context?

In #6, is it possible to specify what the fields are?

MrP
MrPedanticIn #5, I'm not sure about "conditions for justified beliefs". What would it mean, in context?

In #6, is it possible to specify what the fields are?

MrP

Regarding 5), this is the context:

"There are two important points that must be noted. First, the Pyrrhonist is not committed to the criteria of justification formulated in the three Agrippan modes mentioned, but only uses them because such criteria are accepted by the Dogmatists themselves as the basis of their own reasoning. Second, the Pyrrhonist does not rule out the possibility of ever finding an assertion or set of assertions that could meet the Dogmatists’ conditions for justified belief."

Regarding 6) What about: "he is agnostic about all beliefs, and not only about ethical ones". And as regards my other sentence, I could say: "The Pyrrhonist neither affirms nor denies the existence of objective moral values, since in ethics, as in logic, epistemology and natural science, he finds conflicts between incompatible arguments which appear to him to be of equal force."

Cheers,

Sextus
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Show more