Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Taylor's The Ethics of Authenticity

Suggestions for Criticism
by

Mark Robson

on 30 January 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Taylor's The Ethics of Authenticity

What criticisms can I
offer against Taylor? Mark-Scheme says that
'counter-arguments are
identified'. For the top mark
they must be 'identified and
analysed'! Possible Criticisms Were the London
riots individual or
group activities?
Twitter
Social networking
Part of a larger purpose
Dialogic not monologic in nature
Just because something is corporate and not individual does not make it right! Sartrean ideas:
Existence before essence - but Taylor says the individual is made by the community in dialogue. Doesn't this imply essence before existence?
We invent ourselves
Taylor's ideas result in a loss of freedom
When the indivudual chooses he chooses for all Taylor talks about loss of transcendent values.
But if God does not exist, then, isn't this just
the case - there aren't any transcendent values.
Nietzsche believes that society ought to be hierarchical - some people are endowed with more talent than others. Isn't Taylor saying something dangerously similar?
He wants to keep the individual down under the heel of the community, to keep them in a link in the 'great chain of being'.
But there are no meanings except the ones we invent.
Taylor is for social conformity and against individual creativity and innovation. Taylor's argument that we live in inevitable horizons of significance is flawed.
We do live in inevitable horizons, but what horizons there are is arbitrary.
If a society where individual wealth is considered an end in itself, greed might be seen as good.
In a society where children are seen as merely a kind of property, child labour and exploitation might be accepted.
Horizons of significance don't tell us what to do.
Full transcript