Recent Responses
I have read that the statement "There is no absolute truth" is self-refuting because it relies on absolute truth to be true. I have also read that the idea expressed in the previous statement commits the fallacy of begging the question. I am thoroughly confused by the debate here...?
Gabriel Segal
January 18, 2013
(changed January 18, 2013)
Permalink
Relativists do seem to be in trouble with having to live with a relative notion of truth for their own claims. But I am not sure that Allen's worries are decisive. Suppose the claim is that there are no absolute truths, but there are truths relative to standards that you and I accept. You c... Read more
In philosophy there's supposed to be a "problem of other minds". But sometimes our own minds are problems. Is it possible for others, say my friends and family, to know me "better" than I know myself? Might I have a sort of blind-spot where I'm (my self is) concerned that others are able to see more clearly?
Allen Stairs
January 5, 2013
(changed January 5, 2013)
Permalink
It's a good question and the answer seems pretty plausibly to be yes. The impression that people have of themselves can often be off the mark, and that can be shown by how they actually behave. Someone who thinks he's generous might really be stingy, always finding excuses not to contribute hi... Read more
Feminists often oppose "slut shaming" which is when people denigrate women who are perceived to engage in sexual behavior excessively. Does this mean that promiscuity or (so called promiscuity rather) should be condoned or celebrated? Is there any reason to be opposed to (so called) promiscuity?
Louise Antony
January 4, 2013
(changed January 4, 2013)
Permalink
It's important here to separate issues. One issue is whether there is something morally objectionable in a person's having multiple sexual partners. Another issue is whether the answer to that that question partly depends on the gender of the person involved. Feminist opposition to "slut s... Read more
Are spousal hires at tax-payer funded institutions (such as government agencies and public universities) unethical?
Oliver Leaman
January 4, 2013
(changed January 4, 2013)
Permalink
Why just tax-payer funded institutions? Such hires presumably discriminate against other applicants or would-be applicants for jobs taken by the spouse and this is true regardless of the nature of the institution. On the other hand, they might increase the staffing in particular departments b... Read more
Hello everyone, My name is Mohit B. and i am from India. I found one PDF online named as "101 Ethical Dilemmas". I started reading the book and got struck on the very first dilemma. <<<<<< SITUATION: The battleship Northern Spirit was torpedoed in the engine room, and began to sink rapidly. ‘Abandon Ship!’ shouts Captain Flintheart. But few of the lifeboats are intact. One boat, desperately overloaded, manages to struggle away from the sinking vessel, Flintheart at the prow. The cold, grey waters of the Atlantic around it are filled with screaming, desperate voices, begging to be saved. QUESTION: But faced with the grim knowledge of the danger of capsizing the little boat, endangering the lives of those already on board, should any more sailors be picked up and rescued? >>>>>> MY ANSWER or THOUGHT: As, the situation says that there are few lifeboats..yes more sailors can be rescued. If suppose there are no lifeboats more then the answer would also be YES..since sailors can swim. Though the water is cold they can swim to some extent and then others can ump into the water and swim. I mean to say that they can switch between swimming and staying on boat. Now, i am in a dilemma whether my thinking is correct or not. If possible, please help me out. :) :) Looking forward.
Miriam Solomon
January 4, 2013
(changed January 4, 2013)
Permalink
I like your response very much--you are aiming to keep the maximum number of people alive by rotating time in the lifeboat. This is a consequentialist approach that demands selflessness from the people already on the lifeboat. They would have to agree to take their turn and jump back in th... Read more
Here's a quote from Hume: "Nothing, that is distinctly conceivable, implies a contradiction." My question is this: what is the difference between something that is logically a contradiction and something that happens to not be instantiated? For example, ghosts do not exist. Could you explain how the concept of a ghost is not a contradiction? Thanks ^^
Stephen Maitzen
January 3, 2013
(changed January 3, 2013)
Permalink
What is the difference between something that is logically a contradiction and something that happens to not be instantiated?
As I think you already suspect, it's the difference between (1) a concept whose instantiation is contrary to the laws of logic or contrary to the logical relations t... Read more
Is it true that anything can be concluded from a contradiction? Can you explain? It's seems like its a tautology if taken figuratively because we can indeed conclude anything if we suspend the rules of reasoning, but there is nothing especially interesting in that fact in my humble opinion.
Daniel J. Velleman
December 27, 2012
(changed December 27, 2012)
Permalink
Stephen Maitzen has given a syntactic response, showing how formal rules of logic can be used to derive any conclusion Q from a contradiction P & not-P. It might be worthwhile to point out that one can also give a semantic explanation of why Q follows from P & not-P--that is... Read more
Do you think that Wittgenstein knew he was a genius before people started telling him what they thought about the Tractatus? I'm sure that Wittgenstein thought he was a genius before that, but too many people (especially teenaagers, I guess) think they are geniuses. :-) What I mean is to ask if Wittgenstein had enough reason to think he was a genius before reasonable people started tell him things that gave him reason to think that he was.
Oliver Leaman
December 27, 2012
(changed December 27, 2012)
Permalink
He did not seem initially to have thought that he was a genius at philosophy and required confirmation from colleagues before he was prepared to concentrate on it. On the other hand, he obviously had a pretty firm idea of his own talent at a variety of intellectual activities. He also had... Read more
I believe that eating animals is a great evil because of the suffering that it causes to animals. If I tell people this, usually after obnoxiously asking me why I am a vegetarian, they often get offended because they feel that I am "forcing" my opinion on them but in fact I'm just telling it like it is and if they don't like my opinion they shouldn't have asked for it in the first place. But here is what really gets my goat, the whole idea that some people have that being a vegetarian is just a matter of opinion and that since we live in a "free society" somehow that means that we should tolerate a lifestyle predicated on cruelty to animals. According to that way of thinking if the majority of voters agree that meat eating is permissible then nobody has a right to force them to not eat meat. And to me that just seems absolutely ludicrous. We can live in a "free" society all we want but a free society still needs some kind of constitutional backbone that ensures some basic ideals are held sacred or else all you have is the whims and tyrannies of the individual members of that state. I means certainly the idea of not torturing animals because you think they are tasty is something that everyone should hold sacred and if you don't think so then I say too bad. So okay, I imagine most of you who are meat eaters are probably not going to buy this line of thinking and of course most of what I am saying could equally apply to other issues such as abortion. However doesn't the idea of democracy with it's emphasis on tolerance in some ways paradoxically intolerant to those moral beliefs which aren't tolerant but are in the minority?
Allen Stairs
December 27, 2012
(changed December 27, 2012)
Permalink
You've raised several good questions, but I'd like to focus on just one of them. You offer serious moral reasons for being a vegetarian. And anyone who thinks that you're "forcing" your views on them because you argue for your views has a very strange idea of what "forcing" mean. But I was... Read more
Several days ago the Syrian government began assembling “Chemical” weapons, which it was suspected would be used against that nation’s anti-government force, and presumably any innocent civilian bystanders. The United States Government stated that this action would “…cross a red line,” possibly forcing the direct involvement of the US into the situation. My question is; what does the “Chemical” part of it have to do with anything. How is dropping a 500 pound high explosive bomb on a school yard any more or less horrific than dropping a chemical weapon? The kids in the playground aren’t going know the difference. Does it really matter the “way” in which people are slaughtered, maimed, and terrorized in order to provoke and defend an intervention on those people’s behalf? It all seems a little disingenuous to me to tell somebody it’s OK to hit somebody else in the head with a wooden stick, but NOT OK to hit them in the head with an iron bar…. Is it possible that the 500 pounder is seen as more humane? If that were the case we should encourage the Syrian government to use a small yield nuclear devise and end everything in one quick flash. Ultimately, I see the discussion about the violence being lost in how the violence is executed, and I don’t understand why.
Charles Taliaferro
December 27, 2012
(changed December 27, 2012)
Permalink
Very compelling question. I see your point, but will try my best in response. Probably a panelist should reply who has more first-hand experience in this area (I have not yet killed anyone with chemical agents, wooden sticks, iron bars, and such), but I suspect that what makes some... Read more