Jump to content
Turtle

Meta-Ethics

Recommended Posts

Does anyone know where I can find videos or documents about meta-ethics. I especially need something that can teach me to answer these framework arguments. Any video Lectures or relevant documents would be really helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you be more specific.

 

Is this communication & discourse ethics?

 

Or do you just need help with understanding framework? Or how to answer framework.

 

Imagine a world of each--and what that means for debate & fairness & communication.

1. For instance.....if we have a world of X....then......

if....then

2. Or use analogies. This is tantamount to X, Y, or Z which is unacceptable and destroys debate.

3. Use common sense examples--like discussions about school violence

 

What are the prerequisites to communication in a 2 person dyad or a group?

 

Thinking about this for the 2ac versus the K is (slight) different from framework arguments a 1NC will make.

 

Combine theory files...reflect on the evidence....and

 

Implicate your argument in terms of the K's impacts!!!!!!!!!!!! This way you access their argument (or impact) if you win. Ideally you would have an external impact as well--to outweigh.

 

I think it gets back to conversation or games--particularly fairness of games--we need structure. Without structure we have dada or something approaching anarchy. Use empirical/historical examples. Also...the K in all its forms radically changes burdens--how does it alter burdens in unproductive or unfair ways.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you be more specific.

 

Is this communication & discourse ethics?

 

Or do you just need help with understanding framework? Or how to answer framework.

 

Imagine a world of each--and what that means for debate & fairness & communication.

1. For instance.....if we have a world of X....then......

if....then

2. Or use analogies. This is tantamount to X, Y, or Z which is unacceptable and destroys debate.

3. Use common sense examples--like discussions about school violence

 

What are the prerequisites to communication in a 2 person dyad or a group?

 

Thinking about this for the 2ac versus the K is (slight) different from framework arguments a 1NC will make.

 

Combine theory files...reflect on the evidence....and

 

Implicate your argument in terms of the K's impacts!!!!!!!!!!!! This way you access their argument (or impact) if you win. Ideally you would have an external impact as well--to outweigh.

 

I think it gets back to conversation or games--particularly fairness of games--we need structure. Without structure we have dada or something approaching anarchy. Use empirical/historical examples. Also...the K in all its forms radically changes burdens--how does it alter burdens in unproductive or unfair ways.

 

I think this might be in the wrong place...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think this might be in the wrong place...

 

No. I was talking about framework & Ks. Thats what the second part of the question talked about. The poster said, I especially need something that can teach me to answer these framework arguments."

 

If it was more about a different type of meta-ethics I perhaps can speak to that. Until he's a bit more specific what he means....

 

Also...everything i said about framework and K applies to most all types of ethical/worldview/etc type arguments. They all have relatively the same argumentative schema.

 

And one more thing--use argument filters which are comparative. For instance:

 

(What I'm winning) is more important than the alternatives (or more specifically what my opponent is winning) because. Its key to debate/the purpose of debate/ethics/humanity/education/justice/fairness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should read Alexander Miller's A Contemporary Introduction to Metaethics. It covers most of the basics, and you should have a decent background if you read the articles he recommends as well. Some of it is reasonably technical, and it would help if you had a basic understanding of some symbolic logic (e.g., for understanding the Frege-Geach problem). There has been renewed interest in substantive moral realism lately, for which David Enoch's very recent Taking Morality Seriously offers a good argument. Two other major, recent works that advocate a more procedural version of moral realism are Christine Korsgaard's Sources of Normativity and Stephen Darwall's The Second-person Standpoint. For an error theory approach, the classic source is J.L. Mackie's Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. There's also a Blackwell anthology titled something like Foundations of Ethical Theory (or something like that) which will provide you with a reasonable overview of the field.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...