Combining Philosophers

All the ideas for David O. Brink, Martin Luther and Myles F. Burnyeat

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     specify just one area for these philosophers


9 ideas

1. Philosophy / B. History of Ideas / 4. Early European Thought
Aristotle is a buffoon who has misled the Church [Luther, by MacIntyre]
     Full Idea: Aristotle is a buffoon who has misled the Church.
     From: report of Martin Luther (talk [1525]) by Alasdair MacIntyre - A Short History of Ethics Ch.10
     A reaction: Before he became famous, Luther was a university lecturer on Aristotle. This remark was a hundred years before philosophers began serious criticism of Aristotle. Presumably Protestants just stopped reading him.
20. Action / C. Motives for Action / 3. Acting on Reason / b. Intellectualism
Intellectualism is an excessive emphasis on reasoning in moral philosophy [Burnyeat]
     Full Idea: Intellectualism, a one-sided preoccupation with reason and reasoning, is a perennial failing in moral philosophy.
     From: Myles F. Burnyeat (Aristotle on Learning to be Good [1980], p.70)
     A reaction: But Kant's reply would be that while there is much more to moral behaviour, the only part which matters in morality is the reasoning part. And Socrates' view (ignorance is evil) is not obviously wrong.
22. Metaethics / A. Ethics Foundations / 2. Source of Ethics / h. Expressivism
Two people might agree in their emotional moral attitude while disagreeing in their judgement [Brink]
     Full Idea: Critics of emotivism claim that moral agreement need not track agreement in attitude; moralists with the same attitude can disagree in their views, and they can hold the same view while disagreeing in attitude.
     From: David O. Brink (Emotivism [1995], p.224)
     A reaction: Thus two racists can disagree about how racists should behave. Sounds like a good criticism.
Emotivists find it hard to analyse assertions of moral principles, rather than actual judgements [Brink]
     Full Idea: It is hard for the emotivist to give an analysis of the occurrence of moral ideas in unasserted contexts, such as "IF he did wrong, then he should be punished".
     From: David O. Brink (Emotivism [1995], p.224)
     A reaction: This is the 'Frege-Geach Problem'.
Emotivists claim to explain moral motivation by basing morality on non-cognitive attitudes [Brink]
     Full Idea: By stressing the intimate connection between moral judgements and the agent's non-cognitive attitudes, emotivists claim to capture the motivational properties of moral judgement.
     From: David O. Brink (Emotivism [1995], p.223)
     A reaction: The same claim is made by contractarians, who start from our universal self-interest. Emotivists also nicely capture the motivation properties of immoral judgements.
Emotivists tend to favour a redundancy theory of truth, making moral judgement meaningless [Brink]
     Full Idea: If you want to recognise the truth of some moral judgements, perhaps to make room for the possibility of moral mistakes, then one may not be satisfied with the emotivists' tendency to appeal to the redundancy theory of truth.
     From: David O. Brink (Emotivism [1995], p.224)
     A reaction: Probably thinking of Simon Blackburn. People who adopt a redundancy view of truth for semantics are left floundering when discussing what is true in the rest of philosophy.
Emotivism implies relativism about moral meanings, but critics say disagreements are about moral reference [Brink]
     Full Idea: Emotivism suggests that different feelings lead to different individual meanings for moral terms, but critics say that meanings are the same, and disagreement is about the extension (range of reference) of the terms.
     From: David O. Brink (Emotivism [1995], p.224)
     A reaction: It's hard to see how 'ought to p' could have quite different meanings for an emotivist and (say) a theistic moralist. 'Ought' is an obvious and simple word. Good criticism.
How can emotivists explain someone who recognises morality but is indifferent to it? [Brink]
     Full Idea: It is not clear how the emotivist can accommodate the amoralist - one who recognises moral requirements but is indifferent to them.
     From: David O. Brink (Emotivism [1995], p.224)
     A reaction: Nietzsche recognised current morals, but was indifferent to them. It is hard to imagine, though, an amoralist who lacked all the feelings which imply morality.
29. Religion / D. Religious Issues / 1. Religious Commitment / e. Fideism
With respect to religion, reason is a blind whore [Luther]
     Full Idea: With respect to the mysteries of the Christian religion, reason is a blind whore.
     From: Martin Luther (talk [1525]), quoted by Robert Fogelin - Walking the Tightrope of Reason n4.2
     A reaction: Reason is presumably a blind whore with respect to all impenetrable mysteries. Since the reason of Aquinas endorsed the mysteries of Christianity, the remark seems a bit strong, but it is appropriate if you think that only faith (in Christianity) matters.