Recent Responses
If two drunk people have sex, is it rape? Is it immoral?
Nicholas D. Smith
October 3, 2013
(changed October 3, 2013)
Permalink
Let's take your second question first: Is it immoral? First, what counts as immoral will reflect which general theory of morality one has in mind. If you shift away from the having sex part to the getting drunk part, I can imagine that some virtue theorists would think that this alone qu... Read more
I assume that there are philosophical questions or problems that were once hotly debated but which have since been resolved, at least to the satisfaction of most contemporary professional philosophers. I wonder if any of the panelists could provide a few examples of such questions/issues.
Nicholas D. Smith
October 3, 2013
(changed October 3, 2013)
Permalink
Interesting question. Here is a possible example: In Plato's Protagoras, Plato has Socrates and Protagoras argue about whether there is just a single virtue (despite the different names for virtues, such as "justice" and "courage" and "wisdom" and so on), or whether there are several di... Read more
Suppose that all the languages in the world have the same number of vocabulary. Is it possible that one language is more superior than another in the way it represents the world, even if they have the same number of words contained in them?
Oliver Leaman
October 5, 2013
(changed October 5, 2013)
Permalink
I don't see what is so good about brevity in language. What is wrong with lots of synonyms? You then get to choose which word to use. Perhaps it seems that it does not matter, since the choice is between equivalents. Well, they may mean the same thing but they don't sound the same or look the... Read more
I've been going around asking people what the most important part of marriage and love is. The two I always hear the most are communication and patience. But is there actually a correct answer? Are some aspects in a relationship more important than others? Is a romantic relationship possible if there is no affection? No sex?
Allen Stairs
October 3, 2013
(changed October 3, 2013)
Permalink
I'd say most of what you're asking isn't something that philosophers have any special insight into—at least if "important" means "most likely to make for success." When it comes to questions about how daily life actually works, philosophers are in the same boat as everyone else.I suppose someo... Read more
I am beginning to see a trend in non-philosophical discourse to try and distinguish between Ethics and Morality. It seems as though they are used synonymously but it could be possible to distinguish between the two. Is there a difference and who is writing on the subject?
David Brink
October 3, 2013
(changed October 3, 2013)
Permalink
I think "ethics" and "morality" (and their cognates) are often used more or less interchangeably, both in ordinary language and philosophical discussions. However, there are some philosophers, such as Elizabeth Anscombe and Bernard Williams, among others, who draw a fairly sharp distinction be... Read more
When we say that porn is not appropriate for children aren't we implicitly or covertly saying that porn is not appropriate for anyone?
Andrew Pessin
October 2, 2013
(changed October 2, 2013)
Permalink
Not sure why one might think that. We often, easily, and legitimately (I think) distinguish what's appropriate for children v. for adults, so what would be out of place in this case? Obviously we'd have to define/explain what we mean by 'appropriate' here -- and that could vary case by case,... Read more
My question regards the existence and location of non-material entities. An idea exists? color exists? When we open our brain, all we see is neurons/cells, etc. Using a scientific aproach, we can say that color, sound, taste (etc) don't have physical existence - that is well known. If all we can see is neurons connecting, where these kind of entities exist/happen?. By a scientific point of view all entities must have matter and have a location, or not? I'm particulary interested in the location is space of those entities I mentioned. Someone could say ''The are non-material entities'' and the problem would be solved. Also, I'm assuming things that probably no scientist agrees. I don't hope a conclusive answer, I just want some ideas.
Andrew Pessin
October 2, 2013
(changed October 2, 2013)
Permalink
Great question. But one other possibility is that some form of materialism is true: these 'non-material' things might simply be identical to various brain states. So, for example, it's not so much that 'red' (say) is identified with some pattern of neural firing -- but 'perceiving red' may we... Read more
Does the fact that our perceptions can be represented geometrically and that geometry consists of eternal truths independent of the mind prove that an external reality underlies our perceptions?
Stephen Maitzen
September 26, 2013
(changed September 26, 2013)
Permalink
I don't think that such an argument would rationally compel external-world skeptics (who say that no one can know that there's an external world) to abandon their view. External-world skeptics think that no one can know that solipsism is false, where solipsism is the claim that nothin... Read more
Has the Gettier Problem been given too much credit? Take the man looking out the window and sees a mechanical sheep 200 yards away and forms the proposition "There is a sheep out there"...and in reality there is a sheep under his window. Don't you think the man really said "There is a sheep 200 yards out there"? Take the same scenario but instead of the sheep being under the window the sheep is "out there" two counties away. Isn't this easy to see the misrepresentation of the "true proposition" the man really means to express? Please tell me where I am wrong with this critique, Thanks!
Stephen Maitzen
September 26, 2013
(changed September 26, 2013)
Permalink
You take issue with the way the content of the man's belief is being described in this case: you suggest that the content of his belief is the more specific (1) 'There is a sheep 200 yards out there' rather than the less specific (2) 'There is a sheep out there'.
If we're worried abou... Read more
It has been said that if there is human freedom, then we are responsible for our actions. By this, it seems natural to suppose that "given that there is no human freedom (let's just suppose for the sake of argument) then it would follow that we are not responsible for our actions." But this seems an instance of what is called the "fallacy of denying the antecedent". Is this really an instance of the fallacy or is it an exemption to the case because personally I don't see any error in the form of the argument.
Eddy Nahmias
September 26, 2013
(changed September 26, 2013)
Permalink
In the form you've presented the claims, there would be a fallacy of denying the antecedent. If free, then responsible. Not free. So, not responsible.
But I don't think philosophers typically agree with the conditional claim, which says that having free will (or doing A freely) is suf... Read more