Clark, Andy

2006-06-28T17:05:29Z

2006-06-28T17:05:29Z

2000

Like those famous nations divided by a single tongue, my paper (this volume) and Professor P.M. Churchland's deep and engaging reply offer different spins on a common heritage. The common heritage is, of course, a connectionist vision of the inner neural economy- a vision which depicts that economy in terms of supra-sentential state spaces, vector-to-vector transformations, and the kinds of skillful pattern-recognition routine we share with the bulk of terrestrial intelligent life-forms. That which divides us is, as ever, much harder to isolate and name. Clearly, it has something to do with the role of moral talk and exchange, and something to do with the conception of morality itself (and, correlatively, with the conception of moral progress). Most of this Reply will be devoted to clarifying the nature of the disputed territory. First, though (as a prophylactic against misunderstanding) I shall rehearse some points of agreement concerning moral talk and progress.

24479 bytes

application/pdf

"Making Moral Space: A Reply To Churchland" in R. Campbell and B. Hunter (eds) Moral Epistemology Naturalized: Canadian Journal Of Philosophy Supp. Volume 26 (2000) (University of Calgary Press, Alberta, Canada) p.307-312

http://hdl.handle.net/1842/1324

en

University of Calgary Press

Philosophy

Making Moral Space: A Reply To Churchland

Article