cover of episode Ofra Magidor on Epistemicism and Moral Vagueness

Ofra Magidor on Epistemicism and Moral Vagueness

2025/1/9
logo of podcast Philosophy Bites

Philosophy Bites

AI Deep Dive AI Insights AI Chapters Transcript
People
O
Ofra Magidor
Topics
Ofra Magidor: 我研究的是认识论模糊性,它认为即使存在模糊性现象,也不应该修改逻辑和数学的理论。对于任何陈述,都存在真假值。即使对于模糊概念,例如'高',也存在明确的界限点,只是我们不知道具体在哪里。模糊性是一种特殊的无知,即我们不知道明确的界限点在哪里,并且原则上无法知道。 在道德判断中也存在模糊性,例如堕胎的道德许可性问题,在不同妊娠阶段存在模糊地带。道德现实主义与认识论模糊性相符,因为道德现实主义认为存在客观的道德事实,即使我们不知道具体界限。 但是,将认识论模糊性应用于道德概念时也存在问题。道德真理应该指导行为,而我们可能无法知道这些真理。关于道德模糊性的观点,即使存在模糊性,也无法指导行动。 对道德模糊性的第二个反对意见在于,认识论模糊性对道德术语的解释依赖于语义可塑性,这可能导致道德相对主义。模糊词语具有语义可塑性,即其含义高度依赖于使用方式,这解释了我们为什么无法知道其明确的界限点。道德术语也具有语义可塑性,这可能导致对道德现实主义的质疑。 即使不同社群对'允许'的理解略有不同,这并不一定与道德现实主义相冲突,因为他们使用的词语含义不同。不同社群对道德术语的理解不同,这并不一定意味着道德相对主义,但可能会对道德现实主义构成挑战。不同社会对道德规范的理解不同,并不意味着'允许'的含义不同,而是他们对道德规范的认知不同。 道德事实可能存在,只是我们不知道,这与模糊性无关。 Nigel Warburton: (主要负责引导对话,提出问题,并未形成独立的论点)

Deep Dive

Key Insights

What is epistemicism, and how does it relate to vagueness?

Epistemicism is a theory of vagueness that maintains classical logic and mathematics, asserting that even in cases of vagueness, there is a fact of the matter. For example, in borderline cases like determining if someone is 'tall,' epistemicism claims there is a precise cutoff point, but we are ignorant of it. This ignorance is a distinctive feature of vagueness, not a lack of truth value.

Why does epistemicism face challenges when applied to moral concepts?

Epistemicism faces challenges in moral contexts because it posits sharp cutoff points for moral truths that are unknowable. This creates a problem for moral guidance, as individuals cannot act on truths they cannot know. Additionally, moral terms like 'permissible' are highly sensitive to usage, leading to semantic plasticity, which complicates the idea of objective moral facts.

How does semantic plasticity explain our ignorance of sharp cutoff points in vague terms?

Semantic plasticity refers to the high sensitivity of vague terms to slight differences in usage across communities. For example, the word 'tall' might have slightly different meanings in different contexts, leading to different cutoff points. This plasticity makes it impossible for us to know the precise cutoff points, as our beliefs cannot track these subtle differences in usage.

What is the relationship between moral realism and epistemicism?

Moral realism, which posits objective moral facts, aligns well with epistemicism's claim that there are sharp cutoff points for moral truths. However, epistemicism's requirement of semantic plasticity for moral terms complicates this alignment, as it suggests that moral terms might pick out slightly different properties in different communities, challenging the idea of a single, objective moral reality.

How does epistemicism address the 'ought implies can' problem in moral vagueness?

Epistemicism acknowledges that in borderline moral cases, we cannot know the precise cutoff points for what we ought to do. This creates a tension with the 'ought implies can' principle, which suggests that if we ought to do something, we must be able to know it. However, epistemicism argues that this problem is not unique to it, as any theory of vagueness faces similar challenges in guiding action in borderline cases.

What is the alternative to viewing moral vagueness as a result of epistemicism?

An alternative view is that moral vagueness is not due to vagueness at all but rather to the difficulty of moral questions. Just as in mathematics, where some questions remain unresolved despite precise language, moral questions may be hard to answer without implying that the concepts themselves are vague. This perspective suggests that moral facts exist, but our ignorance stems from the complexity of the issues, not from vagueness.

Chapters
The podcast starts by introducing the concept of vagueness using the example of the word "tall." It then introduces epistemicism as a way to address vagueness without altering the rules of classical logic. The core idea is that even vague concepts have sharp cutoff points, but our knowledge of those points is limited.
  • Vagueness in philosophy is exemplified by words like "tall," which lack precise definitions.
  • Epistemicism proposes that vague concepts have sharp boundaries, but we lack knowledge of their precise location.
  • This approach avoids altering classical logic's principle of bivalence (every statement is either true or false).

Shownotes Transcript

​Sometimes, there is vagueness about whether it is morally permissible (or even in some situations required) to perform a certain act—moral vagueness. What is the source of moral vagueness? Ofra Magidor discusses this topic with Nigel Warburton.

This episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast has been made in association with Vagueness & Ethics), a research project funded by the European Commission (grant agreement number 101028625 — H2020-MSCA-IF-2020) and led by Miguel Dos Santos) at Uppsala University.