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 disagreements are 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.
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 Science and Humanities, Volume 54, Issue 2.
-
Views
1053 -
Downloads
90
Article Details
Volume
Issue
Type
Language
