‘Moral ecology’ is a new term that I have adopted to describe the thrust of my thesis (thanks to John Wilkins for a fruitful conversation at PBDB4 leading to the coining of this term). Basically, I’m claiming that: If we have an evolved moral sense – and I think there’s Read more…
Like any other journalist, I get a torrent of press releases every day. Certain words and phrases feature prominently. Too prominently, too often. This post is not specifically about those words and phrases, it’s about how these words and phrases have come to be so numbingly banal. The phrase is ‘best practice’, and this post is a cautionary tale of when ‘best practice’ actually leads to failed practice, and why.
It seems as though ‘best practice’ would, by definition, always be the best way to do something. But sometimes it’s not. This is because some problems aren’t conducive to the creation of one ‘best practice’, but instead need to constantly adapt to a changing set of background conditions.
There are, broadly, three types of problems in this world: those with static background conditions; those with changing background conditions; and those where the background conditions change in response to your actions. ‘Best practice’ only works well for the first of these problems, less so for the second, and often fails entirely in the third.
There are values, and there are the values that promote them. This is a distinction that is worth drawing, because it carves values up between intrinsic (whether they are ontologically privileged or just held to be such) and instrumental values.
But what I want to suggest is that it’s the second-order, instrumental, values that actually take priority over the first-order values when push comes to shove. And the real trick in constructing a healthy, functional and robust moral system is navigating the push and pull of the second-order values rather than quibbling over first-order values. This is what I characterise as ‘moral pragmatism’.
Well, I say “Ockham’s Beard”, but the referent is really just me, Tim Dean. Yep, I’ll be giving a paper at the AAP Conference entitled “Evolution and Moral Diversity” on some of my more crackpot ideas about evolution and, well, moral diversity. The abstract ought to give some hints as Read more…
A bit of departure from philosophy, but wait for it, I’ll squeeze in some game theory at some point, as I do with most conversations. You should see me order coffee.
There’s wailing and gnashing of teeth about the future of journalism. I hear it. Being a journalist myself, I have occasionally wailed and gnashed along with the chorus. Then there’s the ‘iPad will save journalism’ rally, led by ex-Australian News Ltd. Grand Moff, Rupert Murdoch. And in response, there’s the ‘no, the iPad won’t save journalism’ gang. It’s all happening.
What surprises me is the lack of sophistication in much of the commentary about this issue. Don’t get me wrong – it’s complicated and the media faces an unpredictable future – but there are some important elements that seem to be frequently overlooked, particularly when discussing the curly issue of charging for content. When these are factored in, charging for content, particularly on tablets and the iPad, becomes a much more viable prospect. (more…)
“We are all players in the game of life, with divergent aims and aspirations that make conflict inevitable. In a healthy society, a balance between all these differing aims and aspirations is achieved so that the benefits of cooperation are not entirely lost in internecine strife. Game theorists call such Read more…