Debate Proposal -- Cribs v. Bbarr

I hereby place my championship title on the line and challenge bbarr, a most worthy contender, to a debate.

The topic of the debate would be: Bbarr ought to write and publish a book for a general audience about metaethics, ethics and epistemology.

I would argue in the affirmative and bbarr would argue in the negative.

In addition to the championship title, the following would also be at stake. Should I win the debate, bbarr shall in fact write and publish such a book. Should bbarr win, I shall once and for all cease to hint, suggest, beg, demand, or broach in any manner the subject of him engaging in such an undertaking.

Bbarr, do you, pending the proper and customary negotiations about the particular implementation of this debate, accept the challenge?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I hereby place my championship title on the line and challenge bbarr, a most worthy contender, to a debate.

The topic of the debate would be: Bbarr ought to write and publish a book for a general audience about metaethics, ethics and epistemology.

I would argue in the affirmative and bbarr would argue in the negative.

In addition to the ch ...[text shortened]... customary negotiations about the particular implementation of this debate, accept the challenge?

Would this debate be different than the one you and Rwingett had? It seems you would be debating an "ought to" or a "should". How does one debate that?

Originally posted by kirksey957
Would this debate be different than the one you and Rwingett had? It seems you would be debating an "ought to" or a "should". How does one debate that?

In the John Haught thread, bbarr enumerates several ethical theories. My argument would consist of a demonstration that their various fundamental principles support the fact that bbarr ought to undertake the writing project. Presumably bbarr would argue that they don't, or that the ethical theories founded upon them are false, or that some other ethical theory supports the fact that he ought to refrain from writing the book.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
In the John Haught thread, bbarr enumerates several ethical theories. My argument would consist of a demonstration that their various fundamental principles support the fact that bbarr ought to undertake the writing project. Presumably bbarr would argue that they don't, or that the ethical theories founded upon them are false, or that some other ethical theory supports the fact that he ought to refrain from writing the book.

I agree that there are moral reasons, deriving from each of these theories, that support the contention that such a book should be written. Whether they support the contention that it should be me that writes such a book is a different (and harder) question. Incidentally, though, I already want to write such a book. Unfortunately, since I am very early on in my professional career, I must attend to doing research in my fields of specialization (metaethics, normative ethics, moral psychology). If I end up landing something tenure-track, I'll certainly seriously consider writing an introductory text on theoretical and practical reason. So, this debate goes to you, Sir!

Originally posted by bbarr
I'll certainly seriously consider writing an introductory text on theoretical and practical reason.

A textbook? An introductory textbook? Something that is going to be read by some pot-smoking, bearded freshmen who are only in Critical Thinking 101 because they need it for some requirement or who have turned to philosophy because they can't cut it in real academic fields?

I want something that is going to be found in the Philosophy section at Barnes & Noble, something that will stand out among the dry and boring catalogues of the history of philosophy that partition philosophers into volumes alphabetically or chronologically. Something that can actually be read without inducing a coma from boredom or the sort of cranial aneurysm that often results from trying to figure out what the hell Sartre is saying in Being and Nothingnes. I want a readable and engaging "popular philosophy" analog to the great works in popular science such as those by Hawking or Gould.

The field of epistemology needs a "Godel, Escher, Bach" or a "Brief History of Time," and you --- you --- are the man to bring it forth.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I hereby place my championship title on the line and challenge bbarr, a most worthy contender, to a debate.

The topic of the debate would be: Bbarr ought to write and publish a book for a general audience about metaethics, ethics and epistemology.

I would argue in the affirmative and bbarr would argue in the negative.

In addition to the ch ...[text shortened]... customary negotiations about the particular implementation of this debate, accept the challenge?

Wow. If we win, Bbarr kind of has to write the book. He "ought to" right? And that seems to have some sort of deep, almost religious implication to him, so I bet he WILL write the book if he loses.

But we have to show that he "ought to" implicitly; whatever that means...

Is there a difference between "should" and "ought to"?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
A textbook? An introductory textbook? Something that is going to be read by some pot-smoking, bearded freshmen who are only in Critical Thinking 101 because they need it for some requirement or who have turned to philosophy because they can't cut it in real academic fields?

I want something that is going to be found in the Philosophy section at r, Bach" or a "Brief History of Time," and you --- you --- are the man to bring it forth.

Goat is a pot smoker, but he was older than the other students, and he left philosophy because he decided that it wouldn't make a good career and HE NEEDS MONEY. Plus it occasionally gets him into freaked out states of mind that don't help with anything. Thinking about eternal torment for example really screws with his head but accomplishes nothing.

Originally posted by bbarr
I agree that there are moral reasons, deriving from each of these theories, that support the contention that such a book should be written. Whether they support the contention that it should be me that writes such a book is a different (and harder) question. Incidentally, though, I already want to write such a book. Unfortunately, since I am very early on i ...[text shortened]... ng an introductory text on theoretical and practical reason. So, this debate goes to you, Sir!

If you ought to write the book, then you ought to write it. Or are you saying you ought to write it if X happens but ought not to write it (is that how you use ought negatively? 😕) if Y happens?