Can we know for sure that the external world exists? I was wondering about it for a while, and yesterday I thought that it must. You see, when I drink alcohol, it is an empirically experienced factor that affects my mind. That would mean that my mind is connected to my body. And because I can observe, smell and taste alcohol, that would be a proof that my senses can be trusted, at least to a degree on which they operate. Is that a valid argument?
What is impartiality for a judge deciding something like a legal case? I'm not asking about an impartial decision by the judge, but about an impartial situation. For instance, I'm necessarily partial (in this sense) when deciding a case concerning myself. But it seems that I'm also partial when deciding a case concerning my children, since I love them a lot. A racist is necessarily partial when deciding a case between people from different races, isn't he/she? What about a human deciding a case related to the interests of animals? And what about any decent person deciding a case against a criminal?
Are there any philosophers that affirm the substantiality of consciousness without either falling into dualism or property dualism? I personally think that mind is a genuine reality but I'm not so certain that it is a substance in the sense that it is a reality with purely mental properties that exists separately from anything else. But I personally don't think property dualism is a viable alternative either.
How drunk is too drunk to consent? Lets take several scenarios. A karaoke bar which relies on drunk patrons for entertainment. At least some of those people will inevitably regret their performance. If they were in there right minds they would never have done such a thing but nobody really cared about that. If a person has sex with a person who was so drunk that they had sex with someone they wouldn't normally have sex with then some people consider that bad. Others don't. Depending on how drunk the person was some might consider it rape but another person would disagree. What is the appropriate standard then for consent? I think they if a person is 'blotto' then it is likely rape but to be honest I think a person has to be extremely drunk to be unable to consent to sex, for example so drunk they don't know what is going on. I don't think impaired judgment is a standard to go on. I would also suggest that there is a degree of prudery in the idea that the ramifications of merely having sex do to bad...