Recent Responses
Dear Philosophers, Why do you think suicide is considered "illegal"?
Thomas Pogge
July 11, 2006
(changed July 11, 2006)
Permalink
Suicide is outlawed in different societies and epochs for all sorts of different reasons. These fall broadly into three categories: to enforce religious commands, to protect persons from themselves, and to protect persons other than the would-be suicide. Are these good reasons to outlaw suicide?
R... Read more
I was brought up with lots of christian ideas about forgiveness and mercy and charity and stuff, "regardless of the bad stuff someone does to you or of their merit, treat them with kindness and generosity." I reckon there is something deeply virtuous about this attitude. Now I look at the effect of a system of charity on global inequality (that is, depressingly little effect) and at the justice system and it seems to me that it is in everyone's best interests for a sense of justice, even retribution, and rewards to be in human nature. In fact, I'd suggest that the fact that those attitudes are so common is precisely because they are socially beneficial and so evolved (in the loose sense of the word). So my question is, if someone punches me in the face do I turn the other cheek or put them in prison? If a nation is poor, do we offer support with lots of strings attached and hoops to jump or just give money?
Thomas Pogge
July 11, 2006
(changed July 11, 2006)
Permalink
Christianity emphasizes foregiveness, mercy, and charity as a much-needed counterweight to human selfishness (the wide-spread human tendency to give much more weight to one's own perspective and interests than to those of other people).
As your question brings out, this Christian emphasis on foreg... Read more
Are there formal ways (outside of mathematics) in which axioms are chosen? Can you give guidelines in constructing axioms? Must axioms base themselves in sensory awareness?
Thomas Pogge
July 10, 2006
(changed July 10, 2006)
Permalink
Axioms are the foundation of a theory, that from which all its claims are derived. What then grounds or justifies the axioms themselves? In practice, axioms are justified in large part by their implications. This may sound circular, but isn't on reflection. As we start theorizing in some particula... Read more
I believe that rich people are responsible for a lot of the problems in this society. In fact, I believe the rich often contradict their own interest. One everyday example, a new sexy automobile comes out and is in limited quantity the first year. Dealers put a premium on the car because of the limited supply. The rich pay the premium and buy the car. But if they refused to pay a premium, along with everyone else, they could get the car without paying the premium because the dealer would have to remove the premium. Therefore the rich have paid the premium against their own interest. Why are the rich so stupid and how do stupid people get to be so rich?
Richard Heck
July 9, 2006
(changed July 9, 2006)
Permalink
In the example you give, it seems obvious that there is another interest people have of which you are not taking account, namely, the desire to be "the first on the block" to have the new toy. I suppose one could question whether it is rational to have such an interest, but lots of people clearly do... Read more
Hello, My question is as follows: If we have no hope of knowing with certitude (beyond doubt) the reason behind creation itself (why it exists), whether there was choice behind it or if it was inevitable (from God´s perspective), unless we somehow "become God" in all aspects, then I don´t really understand what's the point of studying religion, philosophy, mysticism, etc., because in the end you will never aquire answers to the questions you are really after. And if there ever was a curse put upon us by a divine being, then surely this is the biggest and cruelest of them all. Any comments and reflections would be utterly appreciated. With regards, Moeed.
Richard Heck
July 9, 2006
(changed July 9, 2006)
Permalink
I find this question somewhat puzzling, because it assumes that the only point of studying some subject is to "find the answers". I very much hope that is not true, because I am quite sure that I'll never know the answers to many, if any, of the big questions I spend my time studying. That does not,... Read more
Should a society provide support from general funding (e.g., income tax) to individuals whose actions lead directly (and possibly predictably) to their distress; e.g., medical care for heavy smokers who suffer smoking related illness, air-sea rescue for recreational ocean-going sailors, financial support to people who are not willing to fully support themselves. Some of these examples are complex and contentious; but, what is fair and how can we administer a fair system?
Thomas Pogge
July 9, 2006
(changed July 9, 2006)
Permalink
Where survival, basic health, or dignity are at stake, personsshould be entitled to society's support. In first approximation, a fairsystem of such support might be one that is funded out of revenuesraised from those who might call on it. For example, tobacco users areentitled to any additional esse... Read more
Does (and should) philosophy influence other disciplines? For example, does the philosophy of science have any real impact on the work of physicists or aesthetics on artists today? Did they ever? Does (and should) the philosophy of X do more than comment on and document X?
Peter Lipton
July 8, 2006
(changed July 8, 2006)
Permalink
Astronomers study the stars; philosophers of science study the astronomers. And just as astronomy is worthwhile even though it does not improve stellar behaviour, so philosophy of science may be worthwhile even if it does not improve the behaviour of astronomers.
Some scientists have nevertheless b... Read more
In a response to a question about conceptual analysis and lexicography, Peter Lipton said, "...you can have a justified true belief without knowing, because it may still be just a matter of luck that your belief is true". It is my understanding based on some reading of epistemology that you can't have true knowledge if there's the possibility that your belief is wrong (i.e., you got lucky). Is this a widely held belief in epistemology or am I wrong? Because the definition seems to make sense to me. For example someone rolls dice and says "It's going to be snake eyes", but even if the roll does turn up snakes eyes, they certainly didn't KNOW it (unless the dice were rigged).
Peter Lipton
July 8, 2006
(changed July 8, 2006)
Permalink
I agree that a lucky guess is not knowledge. It's a true belief, but what seems to be missing is some justification for the belief. What is more surprising is that even a justified true belief may fail to be knowledge.
Do you know what time it is right now? Have a look at your watch. Now you kno... Read more
Throughout history, it seems people have refuted the principle of "rights acquired by birth", often because it is contradictory to democracy. Concerning illegal people (people without papers), I feel there are strong similarities, as basically they are criminalised for staying in otherwise public area's, while people who were born there gain that right automatically. Why is it, that it seems completely acceptable to criminalise people just for "being" somewhere, while this seems ridiculous from an ethical point of view? Why isn't "Kein Mensch ist illegal" a basic human rights principle?
Thomas Pogge
July 8, 2006
(changed July 8, 2006)
Permalink
The practice "seems completely acceptable" to us, citizens of the wealthy countries -- presumably because we are used to it and seem to benefit from it. I doubt that it seems completely acceptable to the majority of the world's poor.
Is the practice acceptable? Our practice of private property is of... Read more
Does love exist, or is it really love, without some amount of selfishness? Put it another way, if you want the best for someone and care about someone, but get no pleasure from simply knowing them, is it 'love', yet something like pity or hypocrisy? Considering that that is how it is, does it anyway apply to all sorts of loving; is mother's love, for example, an exception? Or should we say that though a mother always thinks of her children first, it is also selfish, because by being a mother she is able to express that side of herself?
Peter S. Fosl
July 7, 2006
(changed July 7, 2006)
Permalink
"Love means never having to say you're sorry." "Love is blind." "Love is patient." "God is love." There are so many definitions of love. Here It seems you've defined love at least as (a) wanting the best for someone and (b) caring for someone. After that you raise the question of whether love requ... Read more