Okay, one takes the course in critical thinking first. One masters the art of thinking critically and then one masters the art of thinking philosophically about ethics.
How then would one take these skills “out into the world” in order to establish if playing the stock market is a superior or an inferior moral behavior? How would one establish that aborting a baby or bringing it to term is the superior or the inferior moral position.
If “critical thinking” is defined as “the ability to think clearly and rationally about what to do or what to believe” what constitutes objectivity here regarding these behaviors?
Are there or are there not limitations “here and now” beyond which the critical thinkers seem unable to go?
I’m certainly willing to concede that, re a “theory of everything”, this moral certainty may well someday be established. I’m just noting the obvious: that, from my point of view [here and now], it has not been established.
But if there are critical thinkers here who think the opposite let them bring their conclusions down to earth in order to test them substantively pertaining to actual conflicting behaviors emanating from actual conflicting value judgments.
My needs here revolve around exploring the existential relationship between identity, values and political power. As this pertains to the question, “how ought one to live?” out in any particular world.
And I always strive to suggest that there can be a world of difference between exploring this relationship in a classroom – or “metaphysically”? – and taking what you have learned there and plugging it into your actual interactions with others as that pertains to questions of ethics. In particular when moral narratives/agendas come into conflict.
Either I am right or I am wrong regarding the extent to which trained philosophers, ethicists and critical thinkers are able to truly designate a distinction between superior and inferior human behaviors. As this relates to the question of “good” vs. “evil”.
But the only way to really explore that fully is to intertwine theory and practice as this becomes relevant to human behaviors that do come into conflict because some insist one particular set of behaviors is superior to another.
Stock trading and abortion are just two of a seemingly endless string of moral conflagrations that go all the way back, well, a long way back in the history of human interactions.
What I challenge you to do then is to note how the capable philosopher and ethicist using the tools of the capable critical thinker intertwine words and worlds as this relates to actual behaviors embedded in trading stock or aborting a human baby.
We can take this discussion into the philosophy forum and explore it more substantively. If nothing else you can expose just how deficient I really am here in understanding these relationships as the “serious philosopher” would.
