Lexicon of Arguments

Philosophical and Scientific Issues in Dispute
 
[german]


Complaints - Corrections

Table
Concepts
Versus
Sc. Camps
Theses I
Theses II

Concept/Author*  

What is wrong?
Page
Other metadata
Translation
Excerpt or content
Other

Correction: Year / Place / Page
/ /

Correction:
(max 500 charact.)

Your username*
or User-ID

Email address*

The complaint
will not be published.

 
Stegmüller IV 167
Ethics/Hume: thesis: no feature can be seen in the actions themselves , which would make it possible to distinguish whether they are justified or not. - ((S)> Harman) - Stegmüller: but one can even find prescriptive passages in Hume.
---
Stegm IV 243
Ethics/morality/Hume: Thesis:
1. Facing scarce resources, people must cooperate in order to survive -
2. HumeVsHobbes: all humans own sympathy - would everything be available in abundance, of course, respect to other people's property would be superfluous.
---
IV 245
The key driving force is self-interest.
---
Stegm IV 247
Ethics/morality/Hume: E.g. the two rowers: 1. pure coordination problem: - 2. no one wants to make an effort - stabilization of cooperation: 1. only artificial virtue is assumed - 2. No verbal communication - 3. only rational egoism - E.g. Help at the harvest: the first helps the other - then time lag: the second does not help the other -> free riders problem -> sanctions.
---
Stegm IV 283
Reason/morals/ethics/Hume/Stegmüller: reason can never be the motive for or against an action- passions and preferences are logically independent of conclusions - yet, there are practical-rational preferences - Mackie: also dispassion does not allow a clear view on things
---
Stuhlmann I 64
Ethics/Hume: at its reason moral statements are always required.

Found an error? Use our Complaint Form. Perhaps someone forgot to close a bracket? A page number is wrong?
Help us to improve our lexicon.
However, if you are of a different opinion, as regards the validity of the argument, post your own argument beside the contested one.
The correction will be sent to the contributor of the original entry to get his opinion about.