Ep. 369: Philippa Foot's Naturalistic Ethics (Part One)

Picture this. You're on a date, and then bad breath happens. Confidence gone. Here's the truth. Most gums and mints are just bad breath band aids, but not Zelleman's minty mouth. The functional breath freshener you swallow, tiny dual action capsules with mint on the outside, parsley seed oil inside, clinically tested to fight the toughest offenders, even garlic and onions. It's only available online. Go to zellman's.com, zelmins, zellman's.com, code fresh for 15% off. Okay. Only 10 more presents to wrap. You're almost at the finish line. But first there. The last one. Enjoy a Coca Cola for a pause that refreshes. You're listening to the partially examined life of podcast by some guys were at one point set on doing philosophy for a living, but then thought better of it. Our question for episode three sixty nine is something like, can we base ethics on the model of biology? And we read the first four chapters or so of Philip Foot's 2,001 book, natural goodness. More information about the text in the podcast. Please see partiallyexaminedlife.com. This is Mark Linton Meyer in Madison, Wisconsin rating myself for different to good when it comes to having developed to maturity, sustained myself to date, and reproduced. This is Seth Paskin, impractically rational in Austin, Texas. This is Wes Ollen depending directly on my relation to my life form in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Alright. We got the classic group. The original? The natural group, we might wanna say. Still in his, vacationing today. It is Memorial Day as we're recording this. And this reading makes me memorialize. Alasdair MacIntyre just died, and we're, again, returning to some Neo Aristotelianism. I thought we were maybe gonna spend some more time in so called modern philosophy back, you know, contemporaries of Hume. But, Wes, your fancy has chased out ahead, and we have the next couple readings picked out in this area of modern, late twentieth century, or in this case, yeah, 2001, ethics, which is a fine thing to have a bunch of episodes on. And she's basically playing in a area that we're familiar with from Aristotle, although the, you know, there are other people she's reacting to. Yeah. Say a little about why this book, why now? Yeah. I don't remember why I started reading this. I just I was looking at different twentieth century classics that I thought were very readable and interesting and related to the some of the issues that have been raised with reading Hume. And I thought that Philippa Fook was just very fun to read. Now my second reading, I have to say, reading her a second time and taking notes, I find it quite difficult. I find her slippery in a way with her arguments in a very analytic philosophy type of way. But in general, you know, I was surprised to find myself enjoying her and then Korsgaard, you know, people I think would be categorized as analytic philosophers. I just found it …