Recent Responses
Recently, in the final game of World Cup, French midfielder Zinedine Zidane headbutted Italian defender Marco Materazzi for insulting him. In the aftermath, Zidane apologized in an interview with a French television but added that he didn't regret hic actions. Can one coherently apologize for an action yet not regret that action? Or is Zidane false in one of his claims (the apology or the lack of regret)?
Matthew Silverstein
August 18, 2006
(changed August 18, 2006)
Permalink
An apology is an acknowledgement of responsibility and an expression of regret. However, the words "I'm sorry" are not always meant to convey an apology. When I tell a friend who has recently lost a close relative that I'm sorry for his loss, I'm not accepting responsibility or expressi... Read more
If a mother gives birth to a person who goes on to become a serial killer, has she done something immoral? Wouldn't a Utilitarian say that the act of giving birth to that child will decrease the general level of happiness? Great site by the way.
Alastair Norcross
August 10, 2006
(changed August 10, 2006)
Permalink
There are different versions of Utilitarianism. Some judge actions by their actual consequences, others by their foreseeable, or expected consequences. All judge actions in comparison with alternative possible actions. I doubt that the act of giving birth had any possible alternatives. Ho... Read more
DOES LIFE AFTER DEATH EXIST??? WHAT REASONS COULD WE GIVE TO DENY ITS EXISTENCE??? THANX
Alastair Norcross
August 10, 2006
(changed August 10, 2006)
Permalink
The main reason we could give to deny the existence of life after death is that we have no good evidence for its existence. The question of when an absence of evidence for the existence of something is a (good) reason to deny its existence is complicated. But consider the existence of the... Read more
I have been reading about abortion recently and came across a ‘thought experiment’ used by Judis Jarvis Thomson about an expanding baby. The scenario is that you're in your house when your baby starts expanding rapidly. You realise that you have no chance of getting out and the only way to survive is to pop and kill the baby. The idea is that this is an analogy for mothers who will die if an abortion is not performed i.e. is it ok to kill in this form of self-defence? These thought experiments are designed to provoke a moral attitude which can then be applied to discover your true feelings on a particular issue. My instant reaction was that yes, it was ok to pop the baby in order to survive and therefore I believe abortion is ok if it saves the life of the mother. However, imagine that the baby is now an analogy not for abortion but for a virus like AIDS, by the same thought experiment it could be argued that saying yes would justify killing everyone who had AIDS in order to save everyone else in the population. Killing in a form of self-defence. This clearly would not be moral. My question is then, how accurate are these thought experiments if the same answer can provoke the same gut reaction, lead us to the same argument which can be applied in two different situations, one of which is arguably moral and the other which is completely, undoubtedly immoral?
Alastair Norcross
August 10, 2006
(changed August 10, 2006)
Permalink
I agree with Richard that Thomson's analogy doesn't apply to the AIDS victims, as opposed to the virus. I wanted to add something about the reliability of thought experiments in general, though. Philosophers like Thomson (and Kamm) employ imaginary examples in a quasi scientific manner.... Read more
I have been reading about abortion recently and came across a ‘thought experiment’ used by Judis Jarvis Thomson about an expanding baby. The scenario is that you're in your house when your baby starts expanding rapidly. You realise that you have no chance of getting out and the only way to survive is to pop and kill the baby. The idea is that this is an analogy for mothers who will die if an abortion is not performed i.e. is it ok to kill in this form of self-defence? These thought experiments are designed to provoke a moral attitude which can then be applied to discover your true feelings on a particular issue. My instant reaction was that yes, it was ok to pop the baby in order to survive and therefore I believe abortion is ok if it saves the life of the mother. However, imagine that the baby is now an analogy not for abortion but for a virus like AIDS, by the same thought experiment it could be argued that saying yes would justify killing everyone who had AIDS in order to save everyone else in the population. Killing in a form of self-defence. This clearly would not be moral. My question is then, how accurate are these thought experiments if the same answer can provoke the same gut reaction, lead us to the same argument which can be applied in two different situations, one of which is arguably moral and the other which is completely, undoubtedly immoral?
Alastair Norcross
August 10, 2006
(changed August 10, 2006)
Permalink
I agree with Richard that Thomson's analogy doesn't apply to the AIDS victims, as opposed to the virus. I wanted to add something about the reliability of thought experiments in general, though. Philosophers like Thomson (and Kamm) employ imaginary examples in a quasi scientific manner.... Read more
Many people tell about strange experiences in connection with death. Why do SO many FEAR that there will be nothing after death and in consequence even invent some "soothing" stories?! How can one handle the fear of there being actually something (whatever) after death? What if your strongest feeling is fear of your life never really ending??! Is there an intellectual answer for that? (Sorry for my English: I'm Swiss.)
Peter S. Fosl
August 6, 2006
(changed August 6, 2006)
Permalink
Epicureans thought that the fear of death was something irrational that we'd be better of without and that once we understood how the natural universe operates we'd largely become free from. Along the lines of Epicurean thought, David Hume is said to have remarked along these lines when someone... Read more
How can speciesism, be immoral for people, but moral for the animals that clearly prefer their own species? If animals are morally culpable for speciesism, can animals be held morally responsible for other things like murder?
Peter S. Fosl
August 6, 2006
(changed August 6, 2006)
Permalink
I agree with John Moore's response. I'd add these two additional considerations. First, it might be a bit strained to say that non-human animals are guilty of "speciesism" insofar as it may not really make sense to say that those animals possess the concept of "species," much less act upon it... Read more
I never understood the bumper sticker "Against Abortion? Don't Have One." I mean, people who are against abortion believe that it is equivalent to, or close to, the murder of babies. But surely those who put this bumper sticker on their cars wouldn't favor a bumper sticker that suggested that if you're against infanticide, then the proper response is simply to refrain from killing babies. If it's murder, then shouldn't it be outlawed?
Peter S. Fosl
August 6, 2006
(changed August 6, 2006)
Permalink
Yes, I understand what you mean. I've also been known to smile wryly when reading "Abortion Stops a Beating Heart" (as does taking someone off a respirator, killing a mouse or even a spider). Perhaps more controversially, "Women are Not Incubators" (many are, though none are "mere" incubators)... Read more
Was I morally correct in asking my (now) ex-wife to delay the divorce which she had initiated, in order to retain her much needed health insurance under my employer, until she had obtained such on her own? Or was she correct in her assertion that it would have been morally incorrect for her remain married to me, regardless of her health needs, due to the example shown to our children when she was meeting and dating others?
Peter S. Fosl
August 6, 2006
(changed August 6, 2006)
Permalink
I agree with Jyl Gentzler that marriage might for some people take the form of an open relationship, where extra-marital relationships were permissible; and if you find this form of relationship satisfactory, then keeping your then-wife covered by your insurance even while she engaged in extra... Read more
Why has Ayn Rand become so inconsequential to modern philosophy? The point is underscored by the lack of any references to Rand on your site, save one instance where someone asked if there were any refutations of Rand's Objectivism available – to which a link was dutifully supplied. The point is further underscored by some questions in regards to women in philosophy (or the lack thereof) which, to my amazement, Rand was not referred to (even begrudgingly) as a positive example. My pet theories about this situation have something to do with her aligning herself strongly with Capitalism, while philosophers historically have been left leaners or overtly aristocratic (of sorts) but never very money orientated, which is probably seen as a very Earthly consideration to dwell on. Some say that Rands format of conveying philosophical ideas in the form of novels has not helped her cause much. If this consideration is to be given weight then why should Socratic dialog, for example, be so revered? The methodology of presenting a dissenting opinion in Plato's Republic is rendered null when that very opinion is not only authored by the same person as the opposing view, but can only be interpreted as being rather strawmanish anyway. I'm not trying to diminish Plato's works – they are brilliant, I'm criticizing the assumptions that may have effected Rand's popularity unfairly.
Peter S. Fosl
August 6, 2006
(changed August 6, 2006)
Permalink
I agree with Richard Heck on this one. Rand's view of the human person, of freedom, of perception, of markets, etc., seem to me and to most philosophers I've spoken too about it, unpersuasive, overly simplistic, and sometimes objectionable. But I would add two bits:First, I have encountered a... Read more