USF’s Philosophy Colloquium welcomed Sean Walsh, a professor at the University of Minnesota at Duluth to the Getty Study to discuss vagueness in ethical theories on March 6, . He’s here to give insight into some of the toughest questions that all historical and contemporary philosophers have struggled putting together with their own research. Do we simply pick a favorite ethical framework and follow it to the end? Is there an objective goal and justice that we ought to strive for instead? What is the meaning of life? All of these questions he believes connect back to the idea that vagueness is inherent in every single debate about what is right and wrong.
Sean Walsh has studied the topic covered for over 25 years and believes that discussing the role that vagueness plays in theories of morality are important for any and all levels of understanding how moral compasses should be utilized. He finds that understanding what we should be taking away from viewpoints such as utilitarianism or aristotelianism is key for “getting in touch with [the good].”
The topic may sound overwhelming, complex and abstract, but Walsh presents his ideas in a digestible and realistic manner. Questions such as when does a person become a good son or daughter for helping their mom with chores? Is it after 5 hours? 5 hours and 5 minutes? Is someone who helps for only 4 hours and 55 minutes a bad person? Discussing abstract ideas in such a way is why USF’s speaker series is so important as it is open to all levels of experience with philosophical thought to participate in the discussion due to its emphasis on being straightforward and clear.
Walsh said at one point in his discussion, “there isn’t that much precision in right and wrong.” He argued that some moral frameworks philosophers use. To present his point, Walsh recalled when Fredrick the Great of Prussia considered suicide after a military loss to prevent himself being used as ransom against his country, saving many lives. Walsh believes that it is possible that committing suicide “to prevent massive amounts of harm” could make it “morally good.” The question is now how much harm down to the individual person is necessary to make Fredrick’s sacrifice justifiable? Walsh believes that this concept of making small adjustments to quantitative traits permeates each and every ethical framework.
A key part of the Philosophy Colloquium is focused on discussion and questions from the crowd. There were many USF professors of the philosophy department that instead chose to dive deeper, shedding light further onto more specific realms of Walsh’ argument, leaving everyone something to dwell on. Mei Sanders, a first-year USF student found it interesting that his concept of moral vagueness raised the question of “what is the point” if “we’re all gonna have our own ideas?” Tough questions like these would take days to answer but due to the event’s short nature, it leaves the audience with questions to ponder.
Also in attendance was David Kim, professor of USF’s philosophy department. He often recommends speaker events to his students as a way to dive deeper and can even be supplemental to class discussions if they missed a day. Kim stopped offering extra credit for attending events because he believes it overshadows the greater value of listening to a speaker’s research.
Walsh presents at events such as these because he has a real passion for answering why moral frameworks are tough to implement into real world scenarios. It is impossible to determine when an action becomes just or unjust; and he wants people to acknowledge that it is acceptable to concede that the inherent vagueness makes these answers difficult. More often than not people don’t know if their current path will fulfill them, but they’ll know when they are without knowing at what point they cross the finish line.
