Premium
ETHICAL UNTHINKABILITIES AND PHILOSOPHICAL SERIOUSNESS
Author(s) -
PIHLSTRÖM SAMI
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
metaphilosophy
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.475
H-Index - 35
eISSN - 1467-9973
pISSN - 0026-1068
DOI - 10.1111/j.1467-9973.2009.01614.x
Subject(s) - epistemology , argumentative , metaphilosophy , argument (complex analysis) , philosophical methodology , philosophy , seriousness , set (abstract data type) , sociology , modern philosophy , computer science , chemistry , biochemistry , programming language
This article defends a controversial metaphilosophical thesis: it is not immediately obvious that “the best argument wins” in philosophy. Certain philosophical views, for example, extremely controversial ethical positions, may be intolerable and impossible to take seriously as contributions to ethical discussion, irrespective of their argumentative merits. As a case study of this metaphilosophical issue, the article discusses David Benatar's recent thesis that it is, for everyone, harmful to exist. It is argued that ethical and cultural “unthinkabilities” set limits to philosophical reasoning that even the most insightful arguments cannot transcend.