Recent Responses

I think that one of the coolest things about intellectual projects dealing with the "big" questions is that different disciplines can all bring something to the discussion (for example you might invoke quantum mechanics in talking about free will and determinism, or you might talk about the anthropric principle having something to say about religion). As philosophers, do you spend much time (or feel that you should or want to spend time) studying disciplines other than philosophy (physics, biology, pscyhology, economics) in order to bring different sorts of insight to bear on your work? Do you ever worry that if you don't reach outside your specialty, you might be handicapping yourself? Is it troubling to think that philosophy, in this way, might not be self-sufficient, so to speak? -j. santana

Nicholas D. Smith August 24, 2006 (changed August 24, 2006) Permalink Anyone who supposes that philosophy (the word means "love of wisdom") is self-sufficient is probably not a very good philosopher. Most philosophers continue throughout their careers to learn everything they can about cognate disciplines, and what these disciplines have to say about the i... Read more

Isn't it more morally acceptable that we use consenting, informed adults in scientific tests rather than animals? The adults would at least know what they were being tested for and the possible benefits. Added to which the tests are likely to be safer as scientists would be more likely to value a human life rather than that of an animal. Plus this way would fulfil the moral criterion for both utilitarianism as it decreases suffering for the reasons aforementioned and Kantianism but using no one as a mere means, human or animal (although Kant himself argued that an animal cannot be used as a mere means I will ignore this as it is arguable and that if we can avoid using them as a mere means then we should). Could it also be argued that testing on animals is even worse when no consenting, informed adult volunteered? And that such tests shouldn't be done under any circumstances? Many thanks :)

Nicholas D. Smith August 24, 2006 (changed August 24, 2006) Permalink I think the PETA people will think I have a very blind moral eye, but I am inclined to think that your question makes the issue far more simple than it is. For one thing, I think there are morally significant differences between different species of non-human animals. I wouldn't think o... Read more

This afternoon I experienced the following: while driving home through busy traffic I passed under a railway bridge, at which point traffic from another lane attempted to filter into mine. I had the opportunity to wait, and allow a car to filter in. However, I kept driving, and the car behind me waited, allowing the other driver into the main lane. Then I began wondering about whether providing someone else with the opportunity to perform a 'good' act (good here understood as referring to an act that is arguably beneficial to at least one other person, and does not cause harm to anyone) is itself a good act. Put more generally (and in the form of a question), if in performing an act that is detrimental to another we allow a third person the opportunity to perform a beneficial act where they would not otherwise have been able, can our first act be seen in a more positive light, or is still to be considered negatively?

Nicholas D. Smith August 24, 2006 (changed August 24, 2006) Permalink Looks to me as if you were rude and the guy behind you was polite. I really don't think there is any positive value added to a negative act if it happens to result in--indeed, even if it can predictably lead or contribute to--some other agent being given the chance (and taking it) to do... Read more

What is understanding? How do we know when something is really understood? If I get up in front of 200 people and read a speech written by a great nuclear physicist flawlessly, yet without knowing what it is I'm talking about, have I understood what I'm reading?

Amy Kind August 23, 2006 (changed August 23, 2006) Permalink It sounds to me as if you've answered (at least part of) your own question -- if you don't know what you're talking about when you read the speech aloud, then how could you be said to understand it? Suppose you're a native English speaker and you don't know any other languages. A French speaker... Read more

Are aesthetic judgements entirely subjective?

Peter S. Fosl August 23, 2006 (changed August 23, 2006) Permalink Now, of course to some extent it depends upon how one defines "subjective" and "objective." But tersely, I'd say this: No, there are relatively objective bases to aesthetic judgment in at least two senses. For one thing, the criteria by which we come to make aesthetic judgments are in a si... Read more

Some would consider mathematical patterns found in nature, such as the Fibonacci Sequence and the Golden Ratio, as indications of a higher deity, God if you will. Is this a sound belief?

Nicholas D. Smith August 24, 2006 (changed August 24, 2006) Permalink I guess I would like to know from someone who thought such things were indications of the workings of a deity what sorts of patterns would count to them as not being indications of a deity. I'm inclined to think that some sort of order is a simple requirement of there being a universe at... Read more

Today I had a big fight with my sister. We were both sulking, upset and angry. I told my father that I was really hurt and he said that it is not worth being hurt when there are people right now in Israel, Lebanon, Sudan, the Congo and elsewhere who have lost their homes, family members and futures in the blink of an eye. And that if you told those people that there were two girls in New Jersey who got to go to school every day, who had a comfortable house, an intact family and never had to worry about food or money or safety, they would think it was ridiculous how sad and hurt and angry we were being. I understand my dad's point. He is saying firstly that we should be grateful for what we have and not bitter about the small things that are not going well. And secondly that we should think of our problems in perspective in terms of what the rest of humanity may suffer. But can the above idea ever really act as consolation, or should it? It seems that you can't put emotions in perspective - does the fact that something worse exists somewhere else make a bad thing less bad?

Miranda Fricker August 25, 2006 (changed August 25, 2006) Permalink What is it to keep one's emotional reactions in proportion? There is a philosophical issue here that seems worth raising: emotional reactions are not simply sensational reactions to the world, they can be cognitive reactions too. Emotions can sometimes tell you things about the world that o... Read more

How does a political theory differ from political philosophy? The former is empirical; the latter is not. Is that right?

Thomas Pogge August 21, 2006 (changed August 21, 2006) Permalink The indicated difference often concerns merely where it is being done: in a political science department or in a philosophy department. Other than that, "political theory" is often used for more historical works of exposition and interpretation (say, of the writings of Locke or Rousseau), whil... Read more

Imagine I am a scientist working for a pharmaceutical company and I spend 25 years working on a drug that will cure a disease. I patent my work, but the patent only lasts for 8 years. In that time, the pharmaceutical company sells the drug at a high price but uses most of its profits to fund more research. After 8 years, anyone can replicate my drug. Why should I allow generic brands, in that 8 years, to make my drug? I know many more people would have access to it if I did, but at least when my company is in control of it there are quality controls and secondly, my work is not only funding more research but is something I invested a great portion of my life in. Is it fair to argue for generic drugs in that case?

Thomas Pogge August 20, 2006 (changed August 20, 2006) Permalink Your reasoning appeals to a false dichotomy. You assume that either we give monopoly pricing powers to inventors and thereby effectively deny access to recent drugs to poor patients or we allow generic companies to compete and thereby effective deprive inventors of their rewards and of funds f... Read more

When a real object causes an image of itself to form on each of the retinas of our eyes, the image is upside down. It used to be thought that there was a 180 degree twist in the optic nerve to turn it right side up again, but then it was found that there is no such twist. So now it is believed that the image is reoriented in the unconscious mind. Does it not follow that when we see something, we see a twice inverted image of the real object, not the real object itself?

Richard Heck August 18, 2006 (changed August 18, 2006) Permalink Questions along this line have been asked a few times before: See, for example, 987 and 988. The answer is that, no, it does not follow: You see the object. That there is an inverted image of the object on your retina is part of how you see the object. You do not see that image. I could see th... Read more

Pages