Recent Responses
Hi, I was hoping for some clarification from Professor Maitzen about his comments on infinite sets (on March 7). The fact that every natural number has a successor is only true for the natural numbers so far encountered (and imagined, I suppose). Granted, I can't conceive of how it could be that we couldn't just add 1 to any natural number to get another one, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. It seems quite strange, but there are some professional mathematicians who claim that the existence of a largest natural number (probably so large that we would never come close to dealing with it) is much less strange and problematic than many of the conclusions that result from the acceptance of infinities. If we want to define natural numbers such that each natural number by definition has a successor, then mathematical induction tells us there are infinitely many of them. But mathematical induction itself only proves things given certain mathematical definitions. Whether those definitions indeed correspond to reality is another question. Am I missing something here? Thanks so much!!
Richard Heck
March 14, 2013
(changed March 14, 2013)
Permalink
I'm not familiar, either, with any working mathematicians who think there is a largest natural number or, more specifically, that there are only finitely many numbers. I do know of some work, by Graham Priest, that investigates finite models of arithmetical theories, but this is in the context o... Read more
My question concerns ethics and moral obligation. One of my professors consistently presents views that are unsupported, and the content of our class is restricted to reading authors who agree with her political position. I find this irritating, and I object to that kind of indoctrination. But I have more or less remained silent. Recently, however, she had a guest speaker present a very anti-medical view to the class, and discouraged them from listening to their doctors concerning the health risks of obesity. I did some independent research on the information the speaker presented, and found that the information she used was false or misleading. I think that allowing the speaker to present this slanted information, while presenting no contrary opinions from doctors or scientists, was irresponsible and dangerous. I'm worried that these girls will take this advice to heart and ignore their doctors, which will ultimately hurt their health. I kept my mouth shut when I was simply irritated, but now I'm actually concerned for their welfare and I feel that I might have a moral obligation to share the studies I've found with my classmates. If I do so, however, it will make me a pariah in the class. The teacher already singles me out for voicing contrary opinions. Am I required to act because the well-being of others is at stake, or is it supererogatory? When, if ever, are we required to publicly take an unpopular stance against something we view as immoral? What is the prof's responsibility for the students' health? What are the students' responsibilities here, and how do they affect my obligations to them?
Oliver Leaman
March 14, 2013
(changed March 14, 2013)
Permalink
I would not feel responsible for your colleagues in the class, they are adults and it is up to them how to take the information they receive. I do not see why you think the teacher and the invited speaker are doing anything immoral. They are presenting their views, fairly tendentiously on your... Read more
I have a friend who argues that hobbies and non-social passions are unethical. He claims that ethics derives from our relationships to and feelings about one another, and that all ethics is ultimately situated in the community. To pursue a passion that is non-social - such as to collect rocks, study fluid dynamics or stargaze - is to place value in non-social relationships that can therefore never be the source of ethical value. What say the philosophers?
Allen Stairs
March 14, 2013
(changed March 14, 2013)
Permalink
It may be true, though it may not be, that ethical questions only come up in relations with other people. (It may not be true, because many ethical views hold that we have duties to ourselves.) In any case, let's grant it. And having granted that, it may be true, though it may not be, that pursu... Read more
I love reading the Qs and As on this site, and a recent post recommended a book "The Elements of Moral Philosophy" by Rachels. I got the book from my local library and really enjoyed it. What would be a good follow-up book on these topics? I have a hard time slogging through the original basic philosophy works, so I really value a book like this that is serious but not too technical for a layperson. Thanks.
Stephen Maitzen
March 14, 2013
(changed March 14, 2013)
Permalink
In the category "serious but not too technical for a layperson," I'd include Russ Shafer-Landau's short paperback Whatever Happened to Good and Evil?. It concentrates on metaethics (the fundamental nature of ethics) and moral epistemology (how we might know moral truths, if there are any) rat... Read more
Hi, I was hoping for some clarification from Professor Maitzen about his comments on infinite sets (on March 7). The fact that every natural number has a successor is only true for the natural numbers so far encountered (and imagined, I suppose). Granted, I can't conceive of how it could be that we couldn't just add 1 to any natural number to get another one, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. It seems quite strange, but there are some professional mathematicians who claim that the existence of a largest natural number (probably so large that we would never come close to dealing with it) is much less strange and problematic than many of the conclusions that result from the acceptance of infinities. If we want to define natural numbers such that each natural number by definition has a successor, then mathematical induction tells us there are infinitely many of them. But mathematical induction itself only proves things given certain mathematical definitions. Whether those definitions indeed correspond to reality is another question. Am I missing something here? Thanks so much!!
Richard Heck
March 14, 2013
(changed March 14, 2013)
Permalink
I'm not familiar, either, with any working mathematicians who think there is a largest natural number or, more specifically, that there are only finitely many numbers. I do know of some work, by Graham Priest, that investigates finite models of arithmetical theories, but this is in the context o... Read more
Hi, I was hoping for some clarification from Professor Maitzen about his comments on infinite sets (on March 7). The fact that every natural number has a successor is only true for the natural numbers so far encountered (and imagined, I suppose). Granted, I can't conceive of how it could be that we couldn't just add 1 to any natural number to get another one, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. It seems quite strange, but there are some professional mathematicians who claim that the existence of a largest natural number (probably so large that we would never come close to dealing with it) is much less strange and problematic than many of the conclusions that result from the acceptance of infinities. If we want to define natural numbers such that each natural number by definition has a successor, then mathematical induction tells us there are infinitely many of them. But mathematical induction itself only proves things given certain mathematical definitions. Whether those definitions indeed correspond to reality is another question. Am I missing something here? Thanks so much!!
Richard Heck
March 14, 2013
(changed March 14, 2013)
Permalink
I'm not familiar, either, with any working mathematicians who think there is a largest natural number or, more specifically, that there are only finitely many numbers. I do know of some work, by Graham Priest, that investigates finite models of arithmetical theories, but this is in the context o... Read more
In his response to an earlier question about physical beauty, Nicholas D. Smith responded: "Unfortunately, a lot of good-looking people are not very beautiful in any way other than the way they look." Though there might be some rare exceptions in the world, for the most part I agree with his statement. And I'm wondering about the relationship between physical beauty and virtue... If, hypothetically speaking, Mr. Smith's claim were a natural law (Good-looking people are not very beautiful in any way other than the way they look) what then would be the most likely cause for its validity? In other words, do external factors such as our society/culture make it difficult for good-looking people to develop in more internal ways, such as through character, morality, kindness etc. Or does physical beauty itself inherently impede the good-looking ones from ever becoming beautiful in more virtuous ways?
Allen Stairs
March 13, 2013
(changed March 13, 2013)
Permalink
There's difficulty that stand in the way of answering your question. In the actual world, it's not a law that physically beautiful people aren't virtuous. Some are, and some aren't. So your question is about a world with different laws than this one and you're asking what would be the explanatio... Read more
A very common retort when critizising somebody for a reprehensible action (like selling drugs) is that "If I don't do it, somebody else will". Does this kind of bad reasoning fall into any of the classical categories of argument fallacies?
Charles Taliaferro
March 9, 2013
(changed March 9, 2013)
Permalink
I could be wrong, but I am not aware of a formal or informal term that gets at precisely that defense of reprehensible action, but one could see it as what may informally be called a Red Herring or a case of what may be called "Two Wrongs Make a Right." Arguably whether one person's act is... Read more
Hello, I am currently studying philosophy and ethics at my school. We are doing an assignment at the moment on human nature and three element of human nature and how they link in with society itself and help to form and maintain it. I was wondering, could selfishness (a definite part of human nature) in any way, benefit society? As in, would it be able to help form or maintain a society? Thankyou for any responces.
Charles Taliaferro
March 9, 2013
(changed March 9, 2013)
Permalink
Good luck in your studies! Philosophers have thought quite a bit about self-interest and selfishness. What is often called psychological egoism is the thesis that humans always act in ways that they believe to be in their self-interest (either directly or indirectly), while ethical egoism... Read more
If we assume that both computers and the human mind are merely physical, does it follow that a sufficiently advanced computer could do anything that a human brain could do?
William Rapaport
March 8, 2013
(changed March 8, 2013)
Permalink
As Richard points out, logically, no, it does not follow. Just because two things are both (merely) physical, it does not follow that one of them can do anything that the other can do, not even if both of the (merely) physical things are brains. My pencil is a physical thing, but it can't do... Read more