BROADCASTS.com

b'

David and Tamler break down the biggest question in moral philosophy -- can we derive value judgments from a set of purely factual claims?\\xa0Like the Scottish Philosopher David Hume they\'re surprised when the usual copulation of propositions \'is\' and \'is not\' suddenly turn into conclusions in the form of \'ought\' and \'ought not.\'\\xa0And what\'s the deal with all these copulating propositions anyway? Aren\'t they a little young for that? \\xa0Do propositions practice safe copulation? \\xa0Is proposition porn about to be the new fad?\\xa0They also talk about Moore\'s Open Question Argument, which introduced the term "naturalist fallacy," and respond to angry criticism over last episode\'s Rationalia segment. \\xa0\\xa0\\xa0\\xa0

Links

• Listener C. Derek Varn\'s blog post: "The Dogmatic Slumber of Neil deGrasse Tyson"\\xa0[symptomaticcommentary.wordpress.com]
• Hume\'s Moral Philosophy [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
• Is-ought problem [wikipedia.org]
• GE Moore\'s Moral Philosophy [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
• Open-question argument\\xa0[wikipedia.org]
• The Naturalistic Fallacy\\xa0[wikipedia.org]

Support Very Bad Wizards