Now that this is on-line, I hope to include musings on what I'm reading and observing in the world. This will not be a diary where I'll tell what I did all day, but rather a writing journal. Now that I'm temporarily (I hope) out of graduate school, I need a forum to keep my mind in shape. The fact that this weblog is publicly posted should provide enough incentive that my musings will be written well, thus helping me to improve rather than deteriorate in my time away from the only world I've ever known...school.
Presently I'm reading Francis Fukuyama's new book "Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution". His agenda is to uphold the concept of natural law in ethical discourse. Because of all the recent advances in biotechnology (genetic engineering, neuropharmacology, prolongation of life, etc.), Fukuyama asserts that human nature itself is about to undergo a radical transformation. With this change in human nature will come a change in natural law...and ethics will have different norms and principles. I'm still in the middle section of the book, where he describes how the "naturalistic fallacy" of G.E. Moore et al. is itself a fallacy; we should be able to deduce an "ought" from the "is".
I'm interested to see how he upholds this idea. Informed by Iris Murdoch, Alisdair MacIntyre, and Stanley Hauerwas, I want to say that one's "ought" is primary. One can't deduce an "ought" from an "is"...because the "ought" is always presupposed, dictating how we see the "is". I hesitate to say that there is an objective standpoint from which we can define "nature". We all see the world differently based upon our values. Of course, this begs the question: am I presenting an "objective" standpoint here by saying that "we all see the world differently based upon our values"? Hmmm...on this point I'm going to have to sleep on it. Maybe I'll have an answer in a future "blog".
Presently I'm reading Francis Fukuyama's new book "Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution". His agenda is to uphold the concept of natural law in ethical discourse. Because of all the recent advances in biotechnology (genetic engineering, neuropharmacology, prolongation of life, etc.), Fukuyama asserts that human nature itself is about to undergo a radical transformation. With this change in human nature will come a change in natural law...and ethics will have different norms and principles. I'm still in the middle section of the book, where he describes how the "naturalistic fallacy" of G.E. Moore et al. is itself a fallacy; we should be able to deduce an "ought" from the "is".
I'm interested to see how he upholds this idea. Informed by Iris Murdoch, Alisdair MacIntyre, and Stanley Hauerwas, I want to say that one's "ought" is primary. One can't deduce an "ought" from an "is"...because the "ought" is always presupposed, dictating how we see the "is". I hesitate to say that there is an objective standpoint from which we can define "nature". We all see the world differently based upon our values. Of course, this begs the question: am I presenting an "objective" standpoint here by saying that "we all see the world differently based upon our values"? Hmmm...on this point I'm going to have to sleep on it. Maybe I'll have an answer in a future "blog".
posted by Andy at 5:08 AM
0 comments
