A couple of doubts (to MrP)

Question

Hi MrP, as usual I'm gonna bother you with a couple of doubts. (By the way, the article you took a look at was accepted for publication too, but I must take into account a couple of suggestions by the referee. So I suppose I'll have some doubts about it too).

1) "But she is more specific and constantly presents science as (part of) the one conception of the world immune to skeptical attack."

Is it clear that I mean that sometimes she presents science as the one conception of the world, and sometimes as a part of the one conception of the world? Should I perhaps leave "one" out?

2) "Bett seems to make an invalid inference. For from the fact that, to be skeptical about morality, one need not be non-skeptical about every other area, Bett infers that, to be skeptical about morality, one need not be non-skeptical about any other area."

Some time ago we discussed this example, and we have discussed it with davkett. Now I wonder if I should take the second "to be skeptical about morality", or if I should eliminate the commas before the "to be"s.

Thanks,

Sextus

MrPedantic · Accepted Answer

Hello Sextus, congratulations on the article! Very good news.

I'm not quite sure about #1 – can you give the whole paragraph? Something about "conception" interferes with the sense, as it stands.

In #2, I'd keep the parallelism and the commas – they help the reader.

See you,

MrP

Julielai · Answer

Sextus (By the way, the article you took a look at was accepted for publication too, but I must take into account a couple of suggestions by the referee. ).

Congratulations!

Sextus · Answer

.

Sextus · Answer

Hi MrP (I made a mistake with the previous reply),

1) The whole thing is the following:

"Annas’ view is, then, that the local character of contemporary ethical skepticism consists in a contrast between morality and some other conception of the world which describes it as it is in itself. But she is more specific and constantly presents science as (part of) the one worldview immune to skeptical attack. According to her, in both sources of contemporary ethical skepticism to which she refers, confidence in science plays a key role in the argumentation which leads to the denial of the existence of objective moral values".

Now, I wrote this because Annas had said that in one of the sources of cont. eth. skep. the worlview immune to skepticism is science. Regarding the other source she says: "moral values are not objective if the world as it really is, is like that: as it would be described from the non-human, absolute viewpoint. Here the moral scepticism rests crucially on the confidence that there is such a viewpoint, even if it is one that we have not attained and never shall. (And, again, it would be useless to deny that a part is played in this by the belief that this is what science actually or ideally aims at)." That is, here she doesn't say that science is the untouched worldview, but that it plays just a part.

2) "By now it should be plain that the allegedly non-local ethical skeptic portrayed by Bett cannot consistently affirm that none of our ways of talking about the world succeeds in describing it in an objective way. In my view, Bett’s claim that contemporary ethical skepticism is not essentially local seems to be based upon an invalid inference. For 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 objectivity of morality, it is not necessary to have confidence in the objectivity of the natural sciences and the social sciences and common sense and any other view of the world; but it does not follow from this that one need not be certain about the objectivity of any of them. Therefore, Annas is right when she maintains that contemporary ethical skepticism rests on confidence in the objectivity of some view of reality with which morality is at odds."

I give you here the whole paragraph. I added something like the A,B,C,D example, but don't know if it is clear. Also, in "every other area" and "any other area", is it clear that I'm talking about "every/any area other than morality"?

Cheers,

Sextus

MrPedantic · Answer

Sextus"Annas’ view is, then, that the local character of contemporary ethical skepticism consists in a contrast between morality and some other conception of the world which describes it as it is in itself. But she is more specific and constantly presents science as (part of) the one worldview immune to skeptical attack. According to her, in both sources of contemporary ethical skepticism to which she refers, confidence in science plays a key role in the argumentation which leads to the denial of the existence of objective moral values".

Now, I wrote this because Annas had said that in one of the sources of cont. eth. skep. the worlview immune to skepticism is science. Regarding the other source she says: "moral values are not objective if the world as it really is, is like that: as it would be described from the non-human, absolute viewpoint. Here the moral scepticism rests crucially on the confidence that there is such a viewpoint, even if it is one that we have not attained and never shall. (And, again, it would be useless to deny that a part is played in this by the belief that this is what science actually or ideally aims at)." That is, here she doesn't say that science is the untouched worldview, but that it plays just a part.

Just to clarify...If I understand Annas correctly, she says that C. E. S. says that:

1. There is X, upon the basis of which objective judgements may be made.

2. X may be used to disprove the objective existence of Y.

3. There is no Z, which may be used to disprove statement 1.

where X = "science", and Y = "moral values".

Is that how you understand it?

MrP

MrPedantic · Answer

Sextus2) "By now it should be plain that the allegedly non-local ethical skeptic portrayed by Bett cannot consistently affirm that none of our ways of talking about the world succeeds in describing it in an objective way. In my view, Bett’s claim that contemporary ethical skepticism is not essentially local seems to be based upon an invalid inference. For 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 objectivity of morality, it is not necessary to have confidence in the objectivity of the natural sciences and the social sciences and common sense and any other view of the world; but it does not follow from this that one need not be certain about the objectivity of any of them. Therefore, Annas is right when she maintains that contemporary ethical skepticism rests on confidence in the objectivity of some view of reality with which morality is at odds."

I think it's clear. But to make sure that I've understood it: is the essence of your argument that if Bett denies the objectivity of X, he must be applying a criterion of objectivity from some Y? And that therefore he cannot, consistently, base his denial on a denial of all objectivity?

MrP

Sextus · Answer

MrPedantic
Sextus

Just to clarify...If I understand Annas correctly, she says that C. E. S. says that:

1. There is X, upon the basis of which objective judgements may be made.

2. X may be used to disprove the objective existence of Y.

3. There is no Z, which may be used to disprove statement 1.

where X = "science", and Y = "moral values".

Is that how you understand it?

MrP

Yes, your reasoning is ok. So, is my paragraph correct, particularly the "(as part of) the one worldview..."?

Sextus

Sextus · Answer

MrPedantic
Sextus

I think it's clear. But to make sure that I've understood it: is the essence of your argument that if Bett denies the objectivity of X, he must be applying a criterion of objectivity from some Y? And that therefore he cannot, consistently, base his denial on a denial of all objectivity?

MrP

Yes, that is correct too. I've changed a little bit the following sentence:

"That is to say, to deny the objectivity of morality, it is not necessary to have confidence in the objectivity of the natural sciences, the social sciences, common sense, and any other view of the world; but it does not follow from this that one need not be certain about the objectivity of any of them."

I'm not sure if I shouldn't say "every other view of the world". I don't what the difference between "every" and "any" would be here. Also, is it clear that "them" refers to "natural sciences ... view of the world"?

Cheers,

Sextus

MrPedantic · Answer

What about:

"That is to say, to deny the objectivity of morality, it is not necessary to have confidence in the objectivity of the natural sciences and the social 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 some other way of looking at the world."

Still pondering Annas.

MrP

MrPedantic · Answer

Sextus"Annas’ view is, then, that the local character of contemporary ethical skepticism consists in a contrast between morality and some other conception of the world which describes it as it is in itself. But she is more specific and constantly presents science as (part of) the one worldview immune to skeptical attack. According to her, in both sources of contemporary ethical skepticism to which she refers, confidence in science plays a key role in the argumentation which leads to the denial of the existence of objective moral values".

Now, I wrote this because Annas had said that in one of the sources of cont. eth. skep. the worlview immune to skepticism is science. Regarding the other source she says: "moral values are not objective if the world as it really is, is like that: as it would be described from the non-human, absolute viewpoint. Here the moral scepticism rests crucially on the confidence that there is such a viewpoint, even if it is one that we have not attained and never shall. (And, again, it would be useless to deny that a part is played in this by the belief that this is what science actually or ideally aims at)." That is, here she doesn't say that science is the untouched worldview, but that it plays just a part.

One thing occurs to me: is it ok, within the context of the article as a whole, to accept "science" as a general catch-all term, in the Annas context, but to break science down into social sciences, etc., in the Bett context?

MrP

A couple of doubts (to MrP)

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬