anything on Plantinga

Bob loves Plantinga.

Yeah, this is great. I bookmarked the beginning of the whole discussion for later reference.

Bob, do you know if Morris's For Dummies book has anything on Plantinga?

According to the index on Amazon, he makes no reference to Plantinga, but I wouldn't be surprised if a reference didn't sneak in anyway, at least in a "further reading" section. Plantinga so thoroughly transformed philosophy of religion, and is such a massive presence at Notre Dame, that I doubt Morris failed to mention him. At the same time, while Plantinga is an elegant writer, much of what he discusses is at quite a high level of abstraction, so Morris might have refrained from mentioning him for that reason.

Are you going to answer

Give me the definition of ethics and morals.

?

Allyson wrote,

Give me the definition of ethics and morals

It's funny; the first and only time I heard about this distinction between ethics and morals was in the movie, "Election". I've never heard such a distinction brought up in a philosophy seminar, but I might have encountered it in a book somewhere.

Near as I can tell, though, the difference between ethics and morals is this:

Morals is a part of the subject matter of ethics. Morals concerns the following concepts: the obligatory, the permitted, and the forbidden. In the field of "normative ethics", much work is spent figuring out what kinds of actions are obligatory, permitted, or forbidden. (Note: only actions have the status of being obligatory, permitted, or forbidden. Thus, persons can't be forbidden, although some can be legally forbidden from entering a country; but obviously what's being forbidden in such a case is their act of entering the country, not the persons themselves.)

Ethics is much broader. It includes not only such questions as "what kinds of actions are permitted, forbidden, and obligatory?", but also, what kinds of states of affairs or people are good, bad, or indifferent? It might also concern questions like, "how can value--subjective or objective--exist in a world that is composed only of sub-atomic particles (or superstrings, or whatever)?" (such a question would belong to the domain of "meta-ethics") and questions like, "what is the meaning of the word, 'ought'?" (meta-ethics) or "What is a virtue?" (could belong either to normative or meta-ethics) or "when is it permitted for one country to go to war against another?" (applied ethics, but also a part of morality) Like I said, though, philosophers whom I know don't really ever distinguish between ethics and morals.

I should add, sometimes philosophers describe certain states of affairs as "morally good"; thus, the state of affairs in which John performs a morally obligatory or supererogatory action is a morally good state of affairs. (Note: a "supererogatory" action is one that literally goes above and beyond the call of one's moral duty. For example, it might be morally obligatory for you to give some of your money to charity, but it is (arguably) "supererogatory" for you to give 50% of your money to charity. (Some philosophers, like utilitarians, deny that there are any supererogatory actions.)

"how can value--subjective or objective--exist in a world that is composed only of sub-atomic particles (or superstrings, or whatever)?"

This is an interesting bit, and the roommate & I were discussing it recently.

Bob loves Plantinga.

Then Bob may very well like carrots, bon bon.

At the same time, while Plantinga is an elegant writer, much of what he discusses is at quite a high level of abstraction, so Morris might have refrained from mentioning him for that reason.

Have you read any Sider?

This is an interesting bit, and the roommate & I were discussing it recently.

This is one of the main questions meta-ethicists discuss. One philosopher who gives a fairly readable account of this, from what I remember, is Peter Railton, in his Facts, Values, and Norms: Essays toward a Morality of Consequence. The essay I'm particularly thinking of is: "Aesthetic Value, Moral Value, and the Ambitions of Naturalism".

Have you read any Sider?

I have read some Sider: his essay, "Hell and Vagueness" was good, and his new introduction to philosophy, Riddles of Existence: A Guided Tour of Metaphysics seems, from what I have read of it, to be solid and clear. There's no doubt he's a good philosopher, although I've heard that he's kind of a tool. I hope he doesn't read this board. Anyway, it's just hearsay. But it's true.