I thought these readings were really interesting. I have always found the idea of moral arguments fascinating. These articles, the first one specifically, showed me some things about moral issues that I didn’t know before. I did not know that there were so many different kinds of moral arguments. I just think its really interesting how scientific it makes moral arguments. Their methods take some of the moral emotions out of the arguments. When people talk about moral issues often times it results in an extremely emotional conversation instead of a rational, calm argument. This article helps negate that issue a little bit. By calling It action A it makes it sound more scientific and less like an emotional issue. I thought the second article was also interesting to read. I’ve never heard of optical allusions and stuff like that being called mind bugs and I thought was a new way for me to look at stuff like that.
Critical Thinking
“I just think its really interesting how scientific it makes moral arguments.”
I also found this to be the most intriguing about the article. Morals in day to day are framed within our emotions but when we take a step back we see that it is not that black and white. Moral arguments are scientifc, emotional , relgious and ect.
I agree that the article took a new and interesting approach to analyzing moral arguments; it reminded me a lot of using categorical logic to investigate the validity of inferences. I think the sticky part with moral arguments comes when you substitute the premises and conclusions back in. Once people start evaluating the premises, I think this is where the disagreement and emotional components come into play.
I agree with you that these articles were extremely fascinating. The view points on morality that these authors take is definitely different from what I initially thought of moral issues in the way that they take scientific approaches, yet I do find value in these approaches because it demonstrates the complexity of the epistemology of morality.