Recent Responses
Is inflicting pain immoral in itself, or only insofar as it accompanies or incurs bodily or psychological harm?
Thomas Pogge
June 20, 2006
(changed June 20, 2006)
Permalink
Neither, I would think.
Inflicting pain is not immoral in itself, because it is sometimes necessary for the patient's health and authorized by the patient for this reason. Dentists inflicting pain are typically not acting wrongly.
Even when pain is not associated with simultaneous or subsequent b... Read more
Can it ever be legitimate to legally prohibit an action solely on the basis that it causes offense in a part of the population and nothing else? It is clear to me that some of these actions will be regarded as morally objectionable by almost all ethical theories. But can taboo breaking alone be sufficient to forbid something by law, or should such laws always require other justifications as well?
Thomas Pogge
June 19, 2006
(changed June 19, 2006)
Permalink
John Stuart Mill argued that offense to others is not a permissible ground for a legal prohibition of conduct -- "that the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physica... Read more
Can I use someone else as a "mere means" in Kant's words without coercing or deceiving them? Is the use of someone as mere means possible when there is consent? Some of the examples I have in mind are: (1) Prostitutes sell their bodies, hence "objectify" themselves even though they consent to this action. We could consider two sub-cases, one in which a prostitute is forced to prostitution due to poverty, the other in which she or he has other options. (2) Two people, even though they don't like each other, meet regularly to play tennis. The only reason they meet is to play tennis. In short, they "use" each other to play tennis.
Thomas Pogge
June 18, 2006
(changed June 18, 2006)
Permalink
There are obviously different readings of Kant's relevant texts as well as different views on what is the systematically most plausible interpretation of his phrase. With this caution, let me give it a try.
Treating someone as a mere means contrasts with treating her or him also as an end in itsel... Read more
I have a question which many grad students probably ponder: what's important when it comes to getting a job as a philosopher? Please can you rank, in order of importance, the following: Where you received your degrees from. Who your supervisors were. Who your references are. What area(s) you specialize in. How many publications you have (assume that they are not in obscure journals). How many professional (i.e., not grad) conferences you have spoken at. Results from BA and MA degrees. Teaching experience. Awards. Interpersonal skills. Activities (i.e., organizing conferences, founding societies). Who you know. Please include any other criteria which you think I may have failed to mention. If you are aware of any difference between what employers from the UK or USA may be looking for, please could you mention them.
Thomas Pogge
June 18, 2006
(changed June 18, 2006)
Permalink
Ranking these dimensions is impossible, I believe. You cannotcompare dimensions as such, but at best only specific differencesacross dimensions. Consider, for example, whether teaching experienceis moreimportant than awards. Well, a large advantage in teaching experiencewill outweigh some small ad... Read more
"Unique" is surely an absolute. Something either is different to anything else or it isn't. So, suppose I have a collection of 100 CDs (and I'm referring to titles, rather than the physical objects). If someone else had 99 of the same CDs in their collection, then mine would only be 1% different, but it would still be unique (obviously assuming that no-one else had the exact same collection). However, if I again have a collection of 100 CDs and the closest anyone could get to having the exact same collection is to just match with one of my CDs - my collection would be 99% different, and would be unique. Both collections are unique, but is one *more* unique than the other? If so, surely being 'unique' isn't an absolute but a question of degree. If neither are more unique than the other, how can they both be equally unique if it would only take 1 changed CD to match someone elses collection (and lose the unique status), but with the other it would take 99 changed CDs to match another collection.
Thomas Pogge
June 18, 2006
(changed June 18, 2006)
Permalink
We use language to draw distinctions of various kinds. Some suchdistinctions are binary -- such as that between prime and nonprimenatural numbers or that between pregnant and nonpregnant female personsand animals. Other such distinctions are scalar -- such as that betweenobjects called long or sho... 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
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
When considering abortion, the Roman Catholic Church uses the principle of double effect in order to allow abortion on the grounds that their primary intention was to save the life of the mother, e.g. in an ectopic pregnancy. However, surely the doctors (or whoever) know that the embryo will be aborted as a consequence of their action so how is the principal of double effect justified?
Jyl Gentzler
June 16, 2006
(changed June 16, 2006)
Permalink
Proponents of the Doctrine of Double Effect draw a distinction betweentwo sorts of cases: (1) you intend to achieve a particular result Rthrough your action (i.e., this result is the purpose of your action)and(2) you intend to achieve a different result T through your action butforesee that your a... Read more
Is it possible to establish that dogs dream? If not, are there any possible future developments that could?
Gabriel Segal
June 16, 2006
(changed June 16, 2006)
Permalink
I think it probably has been reasonably well established. There is a plausible article about this by Susan Daffon at www.pet-tails.com/LPMArticle.asp?ID=234
Sleeping dogs exhibit a lot of behavioural signs of dreaming: they make running motions, lick their lips and so on. They exhibit rapid... Read more
During a 'debate' with a friend about same sex marriage, he raised the issue of marriage being 'by definition union between a man and a woman', and appeared to hold that this was grounds for rejecting same sex marriage. My question does not relate to the ethics surrounding the issue, but rather to the fallacy I thought he had commited in saying this. It seemed to me as if he was stating the conclusion of an argument that had not been argued (at least, not by us either at or prior to that time) namely whether marriage is, in fact, the union as mentioned - is this what is known as 'begging the question' (i.e., stating a point that remains to be proven as foundation for another conclusion)? If not, then what is the formal term for this fallacy (if it is, indeed, fallacious)?
Gabriel Segal
June 16, 2006
(changed June 16, 2006)
Permalink
The argument from definition was actually put forward in the Canadian courts a few years ago, when they were debating the question of whether gay marriage should legalised. It was argued (roughly speaking) that it makes no sense to try to legalise gay marriage, because, by definition, marriage... Read more