Winston Churchill once claimed that "democracy is the worst form of government...except all the others that have been tried." On the other hand, he also once said, "the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." There is wisdom in both of his quotes, I think. One problem with you (and others like you) refusing to vote is that others who have no advantage over you of any relevant kind, in terms of applicable expertise, will vote, and so you allow their ignorance to determine how you will be governed. That's Churchill's "best argument against democracy." On the other side of his musings on democracy, it remains true that--for all its flaws--democracy (even when ignorant "average voters" determine the outcomes of elections) remains the best of all of the actual ways human beings have actually tried to govern and be governed. So by opting out, you end up making the process less democratic than it would be with full participation-...

I just answered another question related to this one. Please see my answer to that one. In gist, (1) which animals did you have in mind--"animals" is too generic for me to get much traction on an ethical issue. And (2) why do you think it is more appropriate to run experiments on mentally challenged or disabled human beings? Are (some species of) animals somhow more deserving of our moral respect? Why? Are (some species of) animals more ethically important than (some) human beings? What makes you think that? I can think of a great variety of what seem to me to be ethically significant issues that need to be visited here. One is the question of consent, which I discussed in my answer to the other question. Others include: ability to experience pain, cognitive capacities (such as memory, self-awareness), normal life-expectancy of the creature, normal "quality of life" expectancy of the creature (and how much experimentation would lead to deviation from such expectancies). I tend...

Well, might as well go on to complicate things further. I agree with Alan Soble that an adequate answer to such questions must begin with clear understandings of the relevant terms, and I do not intend to supply anything that complete here. But I will say that I disagree with both of Louise Anthony's answers. I would answer "yes" and "yes" (and, as Soble rightly insists, I'll try to explain my answers at least as I might to a class). First, although I think there are probably many different instantiations of what we might reasonably call "romantic love," I am also inclined to think that these--like instantiations of "human being" might be flawed in certain ways. A flawed human being (morally, physically, aesthetically, or medically) is still a human being. But if one asks, do human beings have two legs, I think the right answer is still "yes" even if not all actual human beings happen to have two legs. That is because when a human being does not have two legs, we do not think of their...

I guess what's behind the expression is the idea that a "radical relativist" might believe that what's good/right/obligatory for you is not good/right/obligatory for him/her. So, from the fact that you would regard it as bad to steal someone else's cutlery, you have no reason to think that the "radical relativist" would think it was bad to do so--and so such a person might walk off with yours! As a matter of fact, I am inclined to think that most who like to pose as "radical relativists" are doing just that--only posing. As soon as they perceive that they are victimized, just watch them quite deftly (and earnestly) invoking all the appropriate (absolutist) moral invective! I'm not actually recommending this, but one way to test whether someone is really the "radical relativist" they claim to be is simply to respond by whacking them upside the head. Doing so would be wrong (absolutely!), but I would lay odds that the fiction of their pose would be quickly exposed. But really, in their...

Didn't I just respond to another of your questions on a related subject? I think so... I think the best answer to this question is "all of the above, and a great deal more." As I said, a great deal is asked of public education--constructively, it is suppose to advance knowledge and also to provide society with a better work force, as you suggest; negatively, it is supposed to fend off certain social ills we know to be associated with ignorance and lack of education. These various goals are often incommensurable and we seem to have no very secure ways of figuring out to everyone's satisfaction why we shouldn't be allocating our money and efforts in very different ways than we are now. I do not live or teach in the UK, but it strikes me as very harsh indeed for you to say that the system of education there is not helping to advance knowledge and to expand the boundaries of human understanding. In travels there, and in interactions with my British colleagues, I find no reason to think that...

I won't dare try to answer this question, because the issues involved are more complicated than I can handle. I will say, however, that your question presupposes that the only (or main, or most valuable) reason for public education is to enable and encourage contributions to society. I don't think that is correct. One very important project of education is negative--it helps us to prevent certain social ills and other things that are far less costly to educate away than to deal with later. Any very complete answer to your question would require the following: (1) A complete enumeration of all of the goals public education is to serve. (2) A prioritization of the list accomplied in (1). (3) An reliable assessment of the financial costs involved in achieving (and in failing to achieve) each item on the list of priorities. (4) A reliable assessment of the social costs in achieving (and in failing to achieve) each item on the list of priorities. (5) Because we may well find that we can...

Life is complicated, sure enough... My advice (for what it is worth--not much, I expect) is for you to hang on to your job. Partly, this is precisely because you quitting your job (unless you have some other very clear option available to you in a "clean" occupation) won't make the least bit of difference to the project of ending waste, for the very reasons you gave: someone else will do it, and all you will have done is put yourself out of work. Instead, why don't you consider--and urge your colleagues to consider--"greener" practices at work. For example, designs done on computers (rather than sketched on paper) create less paper waste. (An out-of-date example, I'm sure, but I hope you get the point.) Those with expertise in an industry are in the best position to find ways to cut waste and to come up with processes (and products) that are not so bad for the environment. Find these! And where you can't find better solutions, consider finding "compensations" such as planting more...

I don't think it is humanly possible not to have any prejudices at all. So I don't think that ridding ourselves of this "framework" is a realistic goal. What we can and should do is to continue to subject our assumptions to free questioning and challenge. That's one of many good reasons why society needs philosophers!

We don't all or always follow our urges, because and when we realize (just as you have, above) that our urges would lead us to doing things that are impractical, or worse. Let's face it: Life is not easy. Only death is easy--you can lie forever in your coffin. RIP, right? Life, on the contrary, is messy and filled with complex relationships and demands on our time. But life is wonderful precisely because of all such things. Who wants "easy" if the alternative to "easy" is having family, friends, belongings, and an identity? Most of these things we choose (or choose to sustain) precisely because--for all their messiness and all the many irritations they really do create--they make our lives more valuable, more worth living. So, yes, you could run away and (at least in theory) have it "easier." But would you really be happier, would you really be more fulfilled? Would you flourish. I don't think so... Instead, you (and most of us) choose not to follow destructive, irrational, and...

I'm really confused by your tenses. "What IS the purpose of a college education for women who WERE all to become housewives..."? So, let me begin by saying that I'm not really sure what exactly you are asking, so let me try to answer what MIGHT be your question, and let's see if that works for you. First, you might be asking what WAS, or what COULD HAVE BEEN, the point of getting a college education, at a time when all women would (only) become housewives, and so on. Even in such societies, I think, there would be good reasons to become educated. These might include being better able to interact in an interesting variety of ways with your husband and your friends--after all, educated people are more interesting to talk to than uneducated people, as a general rule. Moreover, even housewives do many things that are profoundly valuable (to themselves, to others they care for, and to society)--for one thing, they raise children. Isn't it better to raise children from a standpoint of greater,...