Recent Responses
Many women who have abortions do so because they realize they won't be able to give the child a decent upbringing. Many anti-abortionists are Catholic and are opposed to birth control (and sex for enjoyment unless it coincides with the possibility of conception - go figure!) which may lead to the very problem they get so exercised about. Don't anti-abortion advocates then have a moral obligation to adopt the offspring mentioned in the first paragraph so as to assure them an affluent upbringing if it is within their means? Crack babies, for example, are not simply a matter of debate about abstract religious dogma. Am I right in detecting massive hypocrisy here? As a rule they don't seem to give a damn, just so long as the foetus survives. The hardship and misery probably awaiting it is conveniently ignored. Also, is it only in religions that we find sexual desire a source of guilt and shame? Surely not. The ancient Greeks had none of our hang ups. Thanks for an edifying site.
Richard Heck
August 15, 2006
(changed August 15, 2006)
Permalink
There are obviously profound moral issues in the abortion debate, and I for one, while respectfully disagreeing with the Catholic Church's position on the legality of abortion, can't even begin to understand its opposition to birth control. And perhaps it is worth emphasizing, for the record,... Read more
Could I have been my sister? Thanks, Bob.
Richard Heck
August 15, 2006
(changed August 15, 2006)
Permalink
Try this question: Could you have been your sister and your sister been you and everything else been pretty much as it is? I find it kind of hard to get my mind around that: In what precisely would it consist that you were her and she were you? There are certain conceptions of the soul that wo... Read more
Could I have been my sister? Thanks, Bob.
Richard Heck
August 15, 2006
(changed August 15, 2006)
Permalink
Try this question: Could you have been your sister and your sister been you and everything else been pretty much as it is? I find it kind of hard to get my mind around that: In what precisely would it consist that you were her and she were you? There are certain conceptions of the soul that wo... Read more
Is an act immoral if you are ignorant of its consequences? Would there be a difference between acts in which the truth has been arguably ignored, such as a Christian who doesn't let his kid wear a seatbelt because he has faith that God will save the child despite what statistics say, compared to an act in which a person is truly ignorant, such as the father who accidentally forgets to belt the child in or does so ineffectively by accident? Many thanks :)
Peter Lipton
August 13, 2006
(changed August 13, 2006)
Permalink
Suppose I know that half the time the sea is calm, half the time it is very rough. If I send you out in a rowboat without checking the weather, my act is immoral, even though I am ignorant of the consequences.
I would say that the case of someone who believes that God will protect his child f... Read more
I am curious about the philosophy behind popular cliches such as "the power of positive thinking" or "self-fulfilling prophecies". How is it that mental processes are able to influence physical outcomes? Is this an issue that would fall under the "Philosophy of Mind" category?
Peter Lipton
August 13, 2006
(changed August 13, 2006)
Permalink
We all believe that mental processes influence physical outcomes. For example, right now my mental processes are (I hope) influencing the movement of my fingers on the keyboard. How is that possible? Well, if mental processes just are physical brain processes, then there is no special myst... Read more
Studying philosophy has brought for me seduction and self love instead of intellectuality and wisdom! After reading some philosophy books and thinking a lot about philosophy of life, Now I've lost all of my life! I think that daily actions of my friends and their thoughts are useless and meaningless in compare with philosophic thoughts. In my idea, it's time wasting to study university lessons and just go around like others. I also see myself in higher degree than my friends and able to understand what they don't catch at all! After all, I have many problems in my daily life, friendship and in university, maybe because of thinking in this way ...
Jyl Gentzler
August 11, 2006
(changed August 11, 2006)
Permalink
The questions that philosophers consider seem to me to be some of themost important questions there are, and so any answers that we get tothese questions are themselves extremely valuable. Some of the answersand arguments that philosophers have offered in response to thesequestions have themse... Read more
Is it enough to merely respect the right of others to have beliefs different from my own without actually respecting those beliefs? Or do I need to try to have respect for the actual beliefs of others, even if I strongly disagree with them? In other words, isn't it somewhat hypocritical to talk about how you respect someone else's right to their own beliefs when you secretly think those beliefs are ridiculous or unsupportable?
Jyl Gentzler
August 11, 2006
(changed August 11, 2006)
Permalink
You might consider my answers to related questions 57 and 141.
Log in to post comments
Concerning the question about a definition of rape answered by Nicholas D. Smith and Alan Soble (http://www.amherst.edu/askphilosophers/question/768), I have the following comment/questions. In all *legal* definitions of rape that I have seen, the main point of argument is not whether or not "sex" (which can generally be defined as a whole range of conduct outside of intercourse) was "wanted" or even "consented to" (as was inferred in the previous posting), but rather, whether or not specifically "penetration" (i.e. invasion of any bodily orifice by a foreign object) was "forced" against a person's "will". I don't see how there could be any argument here, though certain pedants might squabble over an acceptable generalized definition of "will". Here is my concern: I was attacked by a stranger who broke into my apartment late at night and roused me from sleep. He punched me in the face a couple of times, then placed my pillow over my face and threatened to smother me to death if I didn't cooperate with him. He showed intention to penetrate my body, but clearly made a decision not to when he discovered that I was menstruating; yet the attack continued. In order to bring the episode to closure ASAP, I agreed to masturbate him to ejaculation (consenting, but not willingly), after which he left, but not without first stealing money from me. The charges filed against this man did not include rape because there had been no penetration. But, there was never any question about whether a crime had been committed. That's one point. Here's another point: Because of the charges, the "wrong" authorities were handed the investigation (i.e. the burglary division, as opposed to the sex crimes division). This decreased the probability of the man being caught (he was not), and a week later, my roommate was raped according to the legal definition in our apartment while I was at work; probably by the same man, from her description. According to the answers to the question I referred to above, it sounds like you are suggesting that I am mistaken in thinking that agreeing to the unwanted behavior with the intention of preventing further harm to myself and preventing myself from being forced to harm my attacker in some way was a morally positive act. I consented not out of romantic love for another, not out of vindictiveness, and not for masochistic reasons, but out of self preservation and a sense of compassion for a person who appeared to be deeply troubled. Are you implying that since I consented, a violation against me had not been committed? If so, I must disagree! Second, because the law does not consider harmful sexual misconduct without penetration to be similar to rape (it defines such misconduct as "assault", which, in the state in which I was attacked, is a lesser charge to burglary, which is a lesser charge to rape!), is it not immoral and/or unethical NOT to consider such misconduct to be carried out with similar intent as with rape and legislate it as such? For example, doing so may have helped the authorities catch this man before he was able to rape my roommate or anyone else; and doing so would have afforded me the same rights and allowed me access to the some of the same needed services that my roommate was automatically offered as a legally defined "victim of rape." Likewise, if this man had been caught and convicted only of the charges stemming from his case with me, he would have been closed out of certain pertinent therapies simply because his violation was not considered a sex crime. Rape is legally defined solely by action, but would it not help more people (victims and perpetrators alike) to define it by action AND intent? Isn't that how various degrees of murder are defined? Why aren't there various degrees of sexual crimes?
Jyl Gentzler
August 11, 2006
(changed August 11, 2006)
Permalink
I agree with you that the distinction, on which the law must rely insuch cases, between genuine consent and non-consent is tricky. If youagreed to do a sexual act that you regard as repulsive in order to saveyour life, did you or did you not “consent” to the action? If I give a kidnapper$100,0... Read more
Concerning the question about a definition of rape answered by Nicholas D. Smith and Alan Soble (http://www.amherst.edu/askphilosophers/question/768), I have the following comment/questions. In all *legal* definitions of rape that I have seen, the main point of argument is not whether or not "sex" (which can generally be defined as a whole range of conduct outside of intercourse) was "wanted" or even "consented to" (as was inferred in the previous posting), but rather, whether or not specifically "penetration" (i.e. invasion of any bodily orifice by a foreign object) was "forced" against a person's "will". I don't see how there could be any argument here, though certain pedants might squabble over an acceptable generalized definition of "will". Here is my concern: I was attacked by a stranger who broke into my apartment late at night and roused me from sleep. He punched me in the face a couple of times, then placed my pillow over my face and threatened to smother me to death if I didn't cooperate with him. He showed intention to penetrate my body, but clearly made a decision not to when he discovered that I was menstruating; yet the attack continued. In order to bring the episode to closure ASAP, I agreed to masturbate him to ejaculation (consenting, but not willingly), after which he left, but not without first stealing money from me. The charges filed against this man did not include rape because there had been no penetration. But, there was never any question about whether a crime had been committed. That's one point. Here's another point: Because of the charges, the "wrong" authorities were handed the investigation (i.e. the burglary division, as opposed to the sex crimes division). This decreased the probability of the man being caught (he was not), and a week later, my roommate was raped according to the legal definition in our apartment while I was at work; probably by the same man, from her description. According to the answers to the question I referred to above, it sounds like you are suggesting that I am mistaken in thinking that agreeing to the unwanted behavior with the intention of preventing further harm to myself and preventing myself from being forced to harm my attacker in some way was a morally positive act. I consented not out of romantic love for another, not out of vindictiveness, and not for masochistic reasons, but out of self preservation and a sense of compassion for a person who appeared to be deeply troubled. Are you implying that since I consented, a violation against me had not been committed? If so, I must disagree! Second, because the law does not consider harmful sexual misconduct without penetration to be similar to rape (it defines such misconduct as "assault", which, in the state in which I was attacked, is a lesser charge to burglary, which is a lesser charge to rape!), is it not immoral and/or unethical NOT to consider such misconduct to be carried out with similar intent as with rape and legislate it as such? For example, doing so may have helped the authorities catch this man before he was able to rape my roommate or anyone else; and doing so would have afforded me the same rights and allowed me access to the some of the same needed services that my roommate was automatically offered as a legally defined "victim of rape." Likewise, if this man had been caught and convicted only of the charges stemming from his case with me, he would have been closed out of certain pertinent therapies simply because his violation was not considered a sex crime. Rape is legally defined solely by action, but would it not help more people (victims and perpetrators alike) to define it by action AND intent? Isn't that how various degrees of murder are defined? Why aren't there various degrees of sexual crimes?
Jyl Gentzler
August 11, 2006
(changed August 11, 2006)
Permalink
I agree with you that the distinction, on which the law must rely insuch cases, between genuine consent and non-consent is tricky. If youagreed to do a sexual act that you regard as repulsive in order to saveyour life, did you or did you not “consent” to the action? If I give a kidnapper$100,0... Read more
Is it enough to merely respect the right of others to have beliefs different from my own without actually respecting those beliefs? Or do I need to try to have respect for the actual beliefs of others, even if I strongly disagree with them? In other words, isn't it somewhat hypocritical to talk about how you respect someone else's right to their own beliefs when you secretly think those beliefs are ridiculous or unsupportable?
Jyl Gentzler
August 11, 2006
(changed August 11, 2006)
Permalink
You might consider my answers to related questions 57 and 141.
Log in to post comments