Is this you? As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.
Claim your profile
1 INTRODUCTION Moral requirements seem to be imbued with an especially robust kind of normativity, reflecting the seriousness or gravity of moral issues. While it does not really matter whether we abide by the rules of etiquette or fashion, it does really matter whether we act rightly or wrongly. Put another way, moral normativity seems to have a kind of intrinsic authority or ‘oomph’ which makes it different from that of institutional norms.
We were flying up a two-lane state road, passing everyone in sight. ‘Babe, why are you driving so fast?’ I asked. ‘What’s the emergency?’ My wife looked back at me in panic, and said: ‘Something’s wrong with you, and we’re going to the hospital.’ ‘OK… why are we going to the hospital?’ ‘You’re not right. Here, you need to put on a mask.’ ‘Why do I need a mask?’ ‘The COVID-19 pandemic.’ ‘Where are we going?’ She hit the gas even harder.
Authors Abstract In this article I give a unified account of three phenomena: bullshit, pseudoscience and pseudophilosophy. My aims are partly conceptual, partly evaluative. Drawing on Harry Frankfurt's seminal analysis of bullshit, I give an account of the three phenomena and of how they are related, and I use this account to explain what is bad about all three.
As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.
