Over the past few classes we've been discussing David Hume's empirical skepticism, including his belief in the is/ought or fact/value gap, and his theory of two kinds of truth, a.k.a. "Hume's fork."
At the same time, we watched this video claiming that Hume is wrong, and humans are born with a moral sense that can be demonstrated through scientific experiments with babies.
Give me a one-paragraph or several-bullet response to the researchers' claims. Do you think Hume is right that we should be skeptical about these sorts of arguments? Why or why not? What's your theory of the status of morality, based on your own observations? (25 points)
We initially discussed Locke as a political philosopher, whose theory of the social contract justified government only in defense of individual's "natural rights" to life, liberty and property. Now we're looking at his empiricist epistemology: the theory that all knowledge comes from sense experience.
Watch the first five-and-a-half minutes of this video for a recap of Locke's ideas in context.
Then, for 25 points, answer any one of these questions about Locke's philosophy in a short post (5 sentences or bullet points)
a. Is Locke correct that we all see the same objects, but perceive and interpret them somewhat differently? If so, should think make us more or less skeptical of our knowledge?
b. Some think Locke's theory of the mind as a "blank slate" ignores our instinctual understanding of moving, eating, etc. Do you think instinct should be considered a form of knowledge?
c. Do you see any connection between Locke's empiricist epistemology and his political ideology?