IAH Class Notes - Condorcet Matt Ferkany IAH 206 Why study...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–10. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Condorcet Matt Ferkany IAH 206
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Why study self, society, technology?  Intrinsic interest: each topic raises questions  worth studying for their own sake Welfare: Presumably technology affects our  quality of life, individually and collectively. How  exactly? Always for the better? What’s the  relationship between technology and  progress?
Background image of page 2
Technology and progress Techno-optimists:  Tend to believe that technology is not responsible for social  problems, but an important means to their solution.  Technology integral to progress.  Techno-pessimists:  Tend to emphasize the risks and costs of technological change;  believe technology is responsible for many social problems;  skeptical of “technological fixes” to social problems.  Technology unimportant to progress. 
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
What do we believe? Is our quality of life  always  improved by technology?  Are there no technologies we would be better off never  having invented? Are any technologies responsible for any social  problems? Are there any social problems that cannot be fixed  technologically?
Background image of page 4
About subjectivism in ethics Subjectivism: the view that there is no right/wrong or better/worse  answer to questions about values; any answer is  “just your own  opinion” Common argument for subjectivism (the  argument from  disagreement ):  Premise: There is widespread, intractable disagreement about  ethics Conclusion: There is no truth about right, wrong Are all questions about technology and progress merely subjective? 
Background image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
What’s wrong with subjectivism Some claims are  obviously  not “just your opinion,” e.g. shooting up  the Post Office is wrong. The argument from disagreement is INVALID, the conclusion does  not follow from the premise—there is intractable disagreement  about God’s existence, yet whether God exists is not “just your  opinion,” there is a truth. 
Background image of page 6
Condorcet—Techno-optimist?  French mathematician, 1743-1794 Most famous for identifying a  paradox of democratic voting and  inventing voting procedures Early advocate of equal rights for  women and all races, free and  equal public education
Background image of page 7

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
A note about Condorcet’s era 18 th  Century Enlightenment So called because science and rational inquiry  displace tradition and religious faith in government  and ordinary life Newtonian physics Secular and Republican government (representative  govt., requiring consent of the governed)
Background image of page 8
Condorcet—Techno-optimist? Pro:
Background image of page 9

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 10
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 08/11/2009 for the course IAH 206 taught by Professor Staff during the Spring '08 term at Michigan State University.

Page1 / 78

IAH Class Notes - Condorcet Matt Ferkany IAH 206 Why study...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 10. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online