Recently, Joshua Greene has argued that we need a metamorality to solve moral problems for which evolution has not prepared us. The metamorality that he proposes is a utilitarian account that he calls deep pragmatism. Deep pragmatism is supposed to arbitrate when the values espoused by different groups clash. To date, no systematic appraisal of this argument for a metamorality exists. We reconstruct Greene’s case for deep pragmatism as a metamorality and consider three lines of objection (...) to it. We argue that, in the end, only one of these objections seriously threatens Greene’s position. Greene has to commit to the nonexistence of moral truth in order for his argument for the need of a metamorality to get off the ground. This, however, leads to a tension in his overall argument for deep pragmatism: ultimately, it casts his rejection of antiutilitarian moral intuitions into doubt. (shrink)

It is difficult to talk about ethics in Australia these days, because the different metamoral languages make it difficult for people to communicate on moral matters; there are no generally accepted criteria for assessing the meaning and truth of moral propositions; and witness talks larger in these matters than theoretical expertise, and the ideals that favour the acceptance of credible role models are no longer generally accepted. We should not assume that we can say anything meaningful about business ethics. One (...) reason for this arises from the Australian experience of the ''80s: the fruits of a profound cynicism are now with us, as prominent figures find themselves in court to defend their actions, and seem amazed that they are accused of doing anything wrong at all. We may want to stop something like this from happening again, but if the language of business ethics meant nothing to these people, how can we hope that it will mean much to us, or to future generations? A second reason arises from the nature of ethics itself. Business ethics, after all, does not exist in a vacuum; its language will not mean much to people who do not agree on what they mean whenever they talk about right and wrong. Some people, for example, measure the rightness or wrongness of actions in terms of their consequences; for others, on the other hand, some actions are wrong, no mater what the consequences. How are they to talk to each other? What is at issue here is what ethical propositions mean, and how one can measure their truth. And there is another reason. As Socrates pointed out long ago, ethics is not a theoretical science, which can be taught and learnt as dispassionately as mathematics. It is practical, and so engages teacher and pupil in an entirely different way: one cannot say one thing, and do another. When you have read a journal like this, will you necessarily be a better person or a more honest businessman/woman? (shrink)

This paper takes distances from two influential images of Wittgenstein's philosophy: the image of a primarily ethical philosopher defended by the so-called «resolute» interpreters and that of an ascetically "analytical" philosopher transmitted by the standard interpretation. Instead of contrasting images (that of Wittgenstein as an "aesthetic" philosopher and that of the "ethical" Wittgenstein), this paper focuses on the analysis of the fractures and tensions characterizing not only the relationship between Wittgenstein's philosophy and aesthetics, but also the very style of Wittgenstein's (...) thought. Addressing a specific issue from a conceptual and textual standpoint (the unity of Ethics and Aesthetics in the Tractatus) seems to the author to be a fruitful strategy that allows us not only to understand whether and how determinant and central the aesthetic problem is for Wittgenstein, but also to see how aesthetics itself can be radically reshaped through the filter offered by his thought. In the first place, then, it is clarified what the Tractatus claim that ethics and aesthetics «sind eins» might entail. Secondly, it is checked if and how the conceptual consistency of the «being one» of ethics and aesthetics is transformed during the 1930s, to the point that it requires a different configuration: the metamor¬phosis of the logical unity between the two conceptual fields into an analogical affinity. Analyzing this conceptual metamorphosis the paper considers also the idea of an asymmetry of the aesthetic over the ethical as already evident, despite appearances, in the 1929 Lecture on Ethics. This asymmetry is then developed focusing the image of grammatical mechanism with its degrees of freedom of which Wittgensteins writes from 1930. In connection with this image the author outlines finally the idea of an aesthetic mechanism arising from primitive reactions and strictly related with the genesis of language games. (shrink)

The realm of discursivity is in truth heteroclite, submitted to metamor-phoses that testify the various correspondences between the axis of being and that of the existent is testified. Discursivity “pre-sentifies” in a manifested manner a referent that at the same time is not able to determine its existence without associating itself with a situation of knowledge, implicitly with a form of rendering and representation. Be-ing articulated as a conceptual hypostatisation of reason, or a form that creates significance, a textual and (...) socio-historical device, as a closing up of the circle of interpretations or as resignation in silence, discourse itself emerges as a reflection of conscience about things, that is, it acts, produces, searches for affirmation, thus and ultimately crafting out a possible world. (shrink)