Recent Responses
In discussing abortion, I've been told that the woman has a right to bodily integrity. Therefore she has the right to withdraw consent at any time to the fetus using her body, regardless of the situation of the conception (consensual sex, planned conception). Some say any time prior to viability. Is there a fully fledged philosophical argument along these lines? I'm aware of Judith Jarvis Thompson's thought experiment about the room and the people-seeds, but that didn't invoke the intuition in me, "yes, the seeds can be pulled up at any time." Does the fetus have a competing right to bodily integrity?
Stephen Maitzen
January 11, 2013
(changed January 11, 2013)
Permalink
@Thomas Pogge: Thomson's violinist analogy doesn't address the questioner's puzzlement, because it doesn't support "the right to withdraw consent at any time to the fetus using her body, regardless of the situation of the conception (consensual sex, planned conception)." Thomson seems to... Read more
In discussing abortion, I've been told that the woman has a right to bodily integrity. Therefore she has the right to withdraw consent at any time to the fetus using her body, regardless of the situation of the conception (consensual sex, planned conception). Some say any time prior to viability. Is there a fully fledged philosophical argument along these lines? I'm aware of Judith Jarvis Thompson's thought experiment about the room and the people-seeds, but that didn't invoke the intuition in me, "yes, the seeds can be pulled up at any time." Does the fetus have a competing right to bodily integrity?
Stephen Maitzen
January 11, 2013
(changed January 11, 2013)
Permalink
@Thomas Pogge: Thomson's violinist analogy doesn't address the questioner's puzzlement, because it doesn't support "the right to withdraw consent at any time to the fetus using her body, regardless of the situation of the conception (consensual sex, planned conception)." Thomson seems to... Read more
Hi all, In his response to a question on the justice on mercy on December 6, 2012(http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/4957), Dr. Thomas Pogge argued that he does not necessarily equate mercy with a deprivation of justice and gave three reasons for justifying his argument. I understand the reasons he gave, but am confused by the example he uses and how that example which functions to illustrated the third reasons actually illustrates the point of the third reason itself; if "the absence of this excuse is very difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt," how does that lead to the recognition that a, "rare, morally valid excuse in the law might be a bad idea? And how does recognizing that a "rare, morally valid excuse in the law might be a bad idea" lead to greater opportunities for criminals to escape punishment? I find the entire issue of justice and mercy particularly topical given the recent tragedies of the shootings in the United States and the gang rape situation in India and how an argument like Dr. Pogge's could offer a new perspective on such events (please note that I am not implying that anybody would under any circumstances condone such acts of atrocities), so any clarification on what Dr. Pogge meant (or thought he meant) when he was using his example would be appreciated.
Thomas Pogge
January 11, 2013
(changed January 11, 2013)
Permalink
The three reasons I gave were meant to establish the intermediate conclusion that the criminal law cannot perfectly anticipate all realistically possible cases, cannot be designed so that it always yields the correct result by declaring guilty all and only those who really are guilty.
As my... Read more
One of the biggest problems I have found in my struggles understanding common religions is the idea that we as humans always give God praise for his feats of glory, humanity, and miracles, however, it is dispicable or even pure heracy to suggest that he is at fault in something not having your desired outcome. I know this is a broad topic with many ways to go but i'm completely stuck. For instance, If a mass murder were attempted and all were spared due to someone performing a heroic act. The press, the public, our Govt. would immediately flood our country with "praise God", "our prayers were answered", "I told you he performs miracles" etc. On the other hand, if the complete opposite happened and many were murdered, first of all, most people would quietly try not to mention him, but the more bold person would respond like "God has everything happen for a reason", "only God knows" or "pray for the victims". Aren't these completely opposite outcomes to this tragic situation that result in responses that aren't so opposite? Very few are negative or questioning; it almost seems like the ultimate cop-out, like when your kid asks you a question that you don't have the answer to and you say b/c I said so. This is a hypothetical, however, you see and hear it everyday from people getting sick, the sun rising, waiting on test results... Sorry for jumping all over the map and thanks for any responses.
Charles Taliaferro
January 10, 2013
(changed January 10, 2013)
Permalink
Good question and set of concerns. I gather you are dismayed by how some persons' faith may seem irresistible to counter-evidence. I suppose an analogy would be a case when I continue to trust my husband is a good man on the grounds that he sometimes demonstrably cares for me and I e... Read more
How much science should a philosopher know in order to do his or her work properly? If I want to be a philosopher, should I study things like calculus, computer science and quantum mechanics? Should I read those big science textbooks of a thousand pages?
Allen Stairs
January 10, 2013
(changed January 10, 2013)
Permalink
Briefly, it depends on what sorts of philosophical issues you want to pursue. Most philosophers, including most good ones, don't have extensive scientific knowledge, and the questions they're interested in don't call for knowing lots of science. But philosophers who work on issues in physics... Read more
As an atheist, I am often asked the question, "What is the meaning of life for an atheist?" I am myself sometime confused whether as an atheist do have a purpose in life or I am just living and waiting for an end to my life? Mirza A.
Gabriel Segal
January 16, 2013
(changed January 16, 2013)
Permalink
I think the meaning of life is to give life meaning.
I find helpful the idea of being in the now .. the past is all gone, forever, period, it no longer matters. The future is not yet. Be here now!
Here are some quotes I find helpful:
“Human life is founded on kindness and concord, and is b... Read more
When studying Socrates should I read Plato or Xenophon or both?
Nickolas Pappas
January 10, 2013
(changed January 10, 2013)
Permalink
This is an excellent question. My answer will be controversial; so will any other answer people give you.
But first let's back up. What does "studying Socrates" mean to you? If you are curious about the historical person of Socrates, then you'll want to look into all the historical s... Read more
In my cross-cultural psychology class, we learned about the emotion "schadenfreude": to take pleasure in someone else's misfortune. If feeling this emotion goes against an individual's beliefs about themselves, i.e., that they are a good person, then isn't it possible that they would deny that they experienced this; doesn't this mean that our own personal experiences are not verifiable and therefore unknowable?
Gordon Marino
January 31, 2013
(changed January 31, 2013)
Permalink
It is more than possible that we would be inclined to deny this feeling. It is probable. But the fact that there are many books on this topic make it plain that not everyone denies it.
Feelings are not things like tables and chairs. They cannot be examined like external objects. Emotions... Read more
What would you say is the best resource for learning philosophy at the level of an absolute beginner? I have tried MIT OCW, reading articles on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and taking out books from the library -- none of it makes total sense to me. Usually I get the general idea, but I feel like I'm missing something. Should I continue using the Stanford Encyclopedia/will I gain enough from it for it to be effective? Are there other, better ways? Thanks for replying ^_^
William Rapaport
January 7, 2013
(changed January 7, 2013)
Permalink
My favorite for beginners (although the author is somewhat out of favor with some professional philosophers these days) is Thomas Nagel's What Does It All Mean?: A Very Short Introduction to Philosophy. It raises all of the interesting questions in a readable fashion, but leaves the answe... Read more
What would you say is the best resource for learning philosophy at the level of an absolute beginner? I have tried MIT OCW, reading articles on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and taking out books from the library -- none of it makes total sense to me. Usually I get the general idea, but I feel like I'm missing something. Should I continue using the Stanford Encyclopedia/will I gain enough from it for it to be effective? Are there other, better ways? Thanks for replying ^_^
William Rapaport
January 7, 2013
(changed January 7, 2013)
Permalink
My favorite for beginners (although the author is somewhat out of favor with some professional philosophers these days) is Thomas Nagel's What Does It All Mean?: A Very Short Introduction to Philosophy. It raises all of the interesting questions in a readable fashion, but leaves the answe... Read more