Double Talk

Paper Summary:

This paper argues that a common sense view that could be understood by all is more important than "double talk" that is philosophical but cannot be understood by everyone. It looks at the article "A Proof of the Objectivity of Morals" by Ranford Barmbrough who tries to prove that common sense defeats philosophical explanations in many cases.

From the Paper:

""Moore himself speaks largely in terms of knowledge and belief and truth and falsehood rather than of the language in which we make our common sense claims"( Bambrough 37). In his argument he says that words should not be subjective. Communication should be tangible and concrete. He contrasts factual information with valuable information. He argues that people do have moral information that goes beyond the factual. This is information that could and should be shared and gives the example of the child who must undergo surgery. We know that although we can't feel the child's pain, the child would undoubtedly hurt if the surgeon should forego the medication. Although the philosopher could attempt to argue that a child does not need medication, common sense dictates otherwise. Words can be used to spin the argument to make it appear that this child does not need medication to mitigate the pain. However, Bambrough argues that no matter how the point can and will be argued the child who will suffer needs medication. That's common sense."

More papers on Double Talk:

• Essay # 36309 : "Double Lung Transplants"
• Essay # 72286 : "Talk Shows"
• Descriptive Essay # 120394 : "How Do Cell Phones Work?"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: