Recent Responses
Is a presumptive skepticism of as yet unproven rape allegations immoral, anti-feminist or otherwise problematic? Or is it a matter of justifiably presuming innocence?
Allen Stairs
November 29, 2013
(changed November 29, 2013)
Permalink
Singling out rape allegations for special skepticism would be problematic to say the least. As far as I know, there's no reason at all to believe that allegations of rape are less likely to be true than allegations of other sorts of criminal behavior. But in any case, skepticism and the pr... Read more
Must a given novel, piece of music, etc. give pleasure to the reader/listener before it can reasonably be considered to be a work of art? It seems to me that this really must be so; otherwise, why would anyone even bother to even finish the thing in the first place (assuming they're not forced to do so, as in school)? I guess it would be important to define exactly what we mean by pleasure; if I'm a teary-eyed mess after a performance of Tristan und Isolde, has the music given me pleasure? It has, although some detached observer might certainly be led to believe otherwise. But, as a perhaps more extreme example, am I really expected to believe (as music critics and historians do) that John Cage's 4'33'' is work of art? For me, there is no pleasure to be had anywhere. Sure, there is an intellectual component to it: I'm supposed to place the piece in the context of the development of western music history, understand it as a reaction to (or perhaps the logical extension of) what came before, consider what the artist is saying by allowing the audience to hear its own coughing, shuffling, etc. instead of an actual musical performance, blah, blah, blah. In short, I feel like I'm being misled and manipulated by a group of unbelievably erudite critics and historians. I swear, if some nobody like me decided to write 4'33'' (before anyone like John Cage thought to do so) and stage it on some street corner somewhere, nobody would take my artistic intentions seriously (even if I had the same ideas and intentions as Cage). Am I being unfair if I just dismiss every pleasureless, groan-inducing "work of art" as not worthy of the name? (Of course, there is going to be some variation when it comes to who finds what pleasurable. And people get pleasure from playing with ideas and other intellectual endeavors. But I want to know whether a work of art has to be, at its most fundamental level, pleasurable for the reader/listener/viewer to experience and not only just "say something".)
Allen Stairs
November 28, 2013
(changed November 28, 2013)
Permalink
I think the clue to answering your question (and answering no) is to think about your own brief answer: "It seems to me that this really must be so; otherwise, why would anyone even bother to even finish the thing in the first place." This assumes that the only reason someone would subject... Read more
Is there a philosophical similarity between what one can't do because it's morally wrong, what one can't do because it is contrary to one's own aims, and what one can't do because the laws of physics prevent it? Does philosophy have something to say about these various uses of the same word that we find in several languages?
Jonathan Westphal
November 28, 2013
(changed November 28, 2013)
Permalink
To me it seems that the use of the word "can't" and its meaning is the same in all three settings (moral, prudential and physical). "Can't" means there's a contradiction in saying that you do the thing you are said not to be able to do. But the contradiction does not appear without th... Read more
I don't think time exists. I think we have existence and being, we have contingent beings that are mutable and contingent items such as rocks that wear down but time has no impact on either. Time is just a concept that man invented. If there were no movement we would still have existence and hence for sake of phenomenological talk - time would still exist. My hair turns gray and my skin wrinkles because of the change in my hormones - not time. Often time is used as though it has causative powers. Can someone give me an argument that would refute this statement that time is not real but merely a concept?
Stephen Maitzen
November 28, 2013
(changed November 28, 2013)
Permalink
Let's be careful about wording. You say that (1) time doesn't exist. You also say that (2) time is a concept that was invented by humans. If time is a concept, then I don't know which concept it could be except the concept of time. But if time is the concept of time, then each of them i... Read more
If an environment, or just a very secluded 'biome' was artificially produced would it still be considered 'beautiful'? Even considering that this particular secluded artificial environment had a perfectly in sync ecosystem, was self-sustaining, and never tired of resources for human use, would it still be beautiful and fantastical even though it was subject to human manipulation of Earth natural way of nature?
Nickolas Pappas
November 28, 2013
(changed November 28, 2013)
Permalink
This feels like a question informed by Kant’s understanding of beauty. Whether it is or not, it’s certainly a question in tune with Kant; because, for Kant, natural beauty dominates his examples of beautiful objects and sets the tone for his analysis of beauty in general. There seems... Read more
Should I be free to sell my freedom? It seems that from a libertarian perspective, I should be even though I should own my self. But a problem I have with this view is that we can, and often do, make arguably irrational decisions that will inhibit my future capacities as a person. To demonstrate using a small example, it would be better for me to eat an apple rather than a cake but I still choose the cake. Should I be allowed to do this for things as important as my own autonomy. e.g consenting to a contract that binds me to my labourer for life in exchange for shelter and food? Or is the moral responsibility on the employer to not exploit me?
Charles Taliaferro
November 24, 2013
(changed November 24, 2013)
Permalink
Very interesting!I suppose there are some libertarians who think that taking individual liberty seriously should permit you to go so far as to be able to sell yourself irrevocably into slavery to a master. Indeed, as some libertarians insist on persons having the right to take their... Read more
is the existing reality of a thought dependent upon our mind or upon on our external world?
Charles Taliaferro
November 24, 2013
(changed November 24, 2013)
Permalink
Not an easy question to respond to! If, by 'thought' you are referring to what persons think about (as in: I am thinking about math), then because it seems as though we thinking persons can think about the world around us and about ourselves and abstract objects (as in mathematics... Read more
I was engaged in a tense relationship with my supervisor for more than a year. The tension escalated in the last few months and culminated in him framing me for things I did not do. I was not given the opportunity to clarify (the allegations were not made known to me overtly). I have since left the organization but am now having thoughts about clarification now. I was fearful about clarification then as I thought it could implicate many people (including my supervisor), expend resources and worsen my lot without positive outcomes. These concerns remain. Even if I was to mediate (i.e. a conflict resolution approach), I could see no way in being honest and stand for myself while defusing the conflict and mustering a good ending for everyone. What is the right thing to do? Thanks.
Oliver Leaman
November 21, 2013
(changed November 21, 2013)
Permalink
It does not sound like there is a good outcome for everyone, as is often alas the case. Unless you are disadvantaged by doing nothing more, and you say you have left the organization, I would just leave it. It is annoying to leave people who have behaved disgracefully in a position where... Read more
My preference is to live a simple lifestyle, minimizing my carbon footprint, buying and consuming less, checking out books from a library instead of purchasing them, biking to work instead of driving, eating vegetarian, etc. Yet it's clear that if everyone lived in such a minimalistic manner, the global economy would be in a shambles. Am I somehow obligated to live a life of conspicuous consumption in order to help support and maintain economic stability and progress even at the cost of continued environmental destruction?
Oliver Leaman
November 17, 2013
(changed November 17, 2013)
Permalink
I think it might be argued that the present sort of economy would certainly come to an end if everyone started to consume a lot less, but that this might lead to the creation of a new sort of economy which could produce a happier, healthier and more relaxed community. Poorer perhaps in te... Read more
Dear Philosophers I recently posted the following on a forum for a course in Global Health that I took: “India going to Mars while 48.9% of its population can’t go to a flush-toilet! Is it just me, or is there a moral disconnect here? The international press is reporting that India intends to launch a space vehicle which is slated to orbit Mars. India's space program is reported to cost the country US$ 1.1 billion (yes! that is "_illion" with a B) annually from 2011-2013. I am kind of wondering how extensive a sanitation infrastructure India could have had for the combined budgets of their space and nuclear weapon's programs? I am also wondering at what point practitioners from the global health community start to call into question the ethical and moral responsibility of a government toward its citizens? For myself, I think I have reached that point - the next time I get solicited (a.k.a. fleeced) for some health project in India I may just tell them to go to h... Mars, because to me, this stinks worse than the cholera ward I once worked in.” In hindsight (a.k.a., on re-reading the post a few days later), it appears as more of a personal rant rather than what it was intended to be, namely, an expression of disbelief at the misplaced priorities. So my questions to the Philosophers are – (1) how could I have presented this situation from a moral and/or ethical perspective without it appearing as a rant? and (2) is there a philosophical perspective that I could have referenced or drawn from that would have set a higher priority to public good of health care over science, without it appearing to be anti-science, as I am not opposed to scientific research? Thank you for your time. Regards Doug N.
Oliver Leaman
November 17, 2013
(changed November 17, 2013)
Permalink
Well, India is a democracy and so one has to suspect that a substantial part of the population is in favor of such expenditure. Perhaps even those who have no flush toilets. Then there is the prospect that out of the Mars project there will be a result which may be of general benefit to e... Read more