To crystallize my comments and hypotheses from earlier, I question whether real, genuine, paradoxes exist in the realm of morality (that is, real unresolvable ‘existential’ moral paradoxes, rather than apparent paradoxes that can be resolved). But, I think that identifying and exploring difficult paradoxes is perhaps one of the best ways for us to refine premises, improve arguments, and shift (or completely alter) our larger assumptions and paradigms, for example, our basic understanding of morality, of humans, of the universe, and so forth. So, I think it’s a great and valuable endeavor. And, perhaps we will find that genuine un-resolvable paradoxes do exist, in the moral realm or other realms? I look forward to a specific example for exploration.

Just to make sure it’s not the dormative effect of my prose that’s breeding the silent consensus –

The way I called some issues that are often thought to be paradoxes, to recall, was as follows: that the “pdx of deontology” is not a paradox but just a mistake, that the “pdx of hedonism” is no paradox but at best points to a curious feature of our world, and that mercy and modesty are also probably not paradoxes, although they are important and interesting puzzles. Any objectors please come forth before my next post/question.

One thought for now: If one takes a first-person perspective (that is, his/her own perspective), and if such person believes she/he indeed has run into a genuine (not apparent) paradox, then that person is still left with a question, aside from whether she/he convinces others that the paradox is genuine: “What do I do now?”

There are at least two answers, and perhaps some others as well: First, the person could cement her/his view that the paradox is genuine, retain all premises, retain the reasoning involved, accept the existence of genuine paradoxes, avoid altering her/his overall moral theory, and move forward. OR, the person could revisit the premises (one more time, or twice, or …), revisit the reasoning, examine (deeply) the assumptions inherent in her/his overall moral theory and paradigms, enlist others to point out possible problems with either the premises or reasoning or paradigm, and so forth.

For example, in the realm of science, Einstein and Darwin and Copernicus all saw (or perceived) ‘paradoxes’ in the contemporary prevailing theories and accepted ‘facts’ of their times. But, instead of accepting the prevailing theories and ‘facts’, they tested them, saw new paradigms, and broke through the old to the new. In a sense, a deep intuitive reluctance to accept the existence of genuine irresolvable paradoxes has been a prime motivator for the discovery of new and ever-more-accurate understanding. This doesn’t mean (or prove), of course, that genuine paradoxes don’t exist. It’s just one consideration.

I look forward to a paradox to consider, and I think the topic (and your thoughts) are very helpful. Thanks.