POPPER’S MORAL INDIVIDUALISM AND ITS IMPLICATION FOR REASONABLE DIALOGUE: FOCUS ON HACOHEN’S AND O’HEAR’S INQUIRY OF POPPER’S ETHICS
PDF

Keywords

reasonable dialogue
authoritarian attitude
absolute knowledge
fallibilism
moral individualism
anti-foundationalism

How to Cite

Muhammad Ateeq. (2015). POPPER’S MORAL INDIVIDUALISM AND ITS IMPLICATION FOR REASONABLE DIALOGUE: FOCUS ON HACOHEN’S AND O’HEAR’S INQUIRY OF POPPER’S ETHICS. Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 54(2), 33–43. https://doi.org/10.46568/jssh.v54i2.113

Abstract

It is said that the social conflicts and disputes can be resolved by dialogue between opposing groups. Karl popper argues that if social conflicts are resolved with the authoritarian attitude that our arguments are conclusive then this attitude imposes its opinion and hence it cannot provide the ground for reasonable dialogue. Karl Popper rejects authoritarian attitude on the basis of his critique of absolute knowledge. He believes in fallibility of knowledge. He thinks that if  disagreementsare resolved with an attitude that our arguments are rational but are not conclusive then this attitude is ready to be convinced by other. Hence it can provide the ground for reasonable dialogue. Popper is of the view that an attitude is moral as it believes in equality of men. Hacohen and O’Hear critically examine Popper’s fallibilism. They identify a problem that fallibilism ultimately leads Popper to anti-foundationalism which makes ethics purely individualistic. In this paper I focus on this problem and workout how Popper’s moral individualism is inadequate for possibility of reasonable dialogue.

https://doi.org/10.46568/jssh.v54i2.113
PDF
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Copyright (c) 2015 Dr. Muhammad Ateeq

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...