Recent Responses
Being an autodidact in philosophy, while academically undertaking a Major in Political Science, can I be considered a philosopher? Not by entitlement, but by the notion that one creates and studies the philosophical world view, as anybody of such a field does regardless of academic degrees. I am so disturbed with some comments that it is only through credentials that one becomes a philosopher, that I would would like to defy and counter this confined notion by proving that it is, indeed, not the only means. Thus I require supporting views on this topic. So, once again, can I be considered a philosopher whilst also being an autodidact?
Gordon Marino
September 28, 2012
(changed September 28, 2012)
Permalink
Philosophy is a love of wisdom and a philosopher is one who both loves wisdom and is possessed of some. There are plenty of people with philosophy degrees whom I would hesitate to call philosophers and there are plenty of folks who have never taken a course in philosophy whom I would be... Read more
Many pro-choice advocates maintain that, though abortions should be permissible, they are regrettable nonetheless. For instance, Bill Clinton famously said that he wanted to keep abortions "safe, legal and rare." I don't understand this view. To my mind, whether abortion is immoral turns on the question of whether a fetus is a person with a right to life. But this seems a clear dichotomy--either fetuses have such a right, or they don't. If they do, then abortion is immoral. If they don't, then not only should abortion be permitted, but there is nothing objectionable about them at all. Indeed, it is every bit as innocuous as using condoms. Sometimes I think that what is happening is that people who advocate this position are still captive to some kind of residual pro-life sentiment. They believe that abortions should be permissible, but they can't shake the feeling that they are still, somehow, a bad thing. (And not just because of circumstantial considerations, such as that women who need abortions are often poor or otherwise disadvantaged, or that mothers who choose abortion may come to regret her decision; but because abortions are themselves are bad.) Assuming that abortions are indeed morally permissible, what is there that could make them regrettable?
Richard Heck
October 10, 2012
(changed October 10, 2012)
Permalink
Thanks to everyone for their contributions, and especially to Bette for reminding us of the importance of hearing women's voices on such topics. I'll add one more point, along the same lines.
The questioner says that, if a fetus has a right to life, then abortion is immoral and should not be... Read more
Everyone agrees that slavery is evil. Everyone knows that slavery existed. Is there any understanding of why it existed? Is it just because people were too ignorant/greedy to see the problem with it? I have heard that Karl Marx has a theory that slavery was necessary (and evil in the same time) because every society needs some sort of forced labor. Nowadays, technology is our source of forced labor, but when technology was very primitive, slavery played the role of the required forced labor. Does such a theory (or anything somehow similar to this) exist? If yes, what is the reasoning behind it.
Oliver Leaman
September 27, 2012
(changed September 27, 2012)
Permalink
I don't think you are right, many people in the past thought that slavery was unproblematic, and based on the natural differences that exist between people. In just the same way that today we think it is OK for animals to work for us and be eaten by us, and for plants to be used by us,... Read more
Is teaching young children religion child abuse? Should a child's mind be programmed from birth based upon a parents blind faith in something? Shouldn't a child be allowed to eventually grow into their own religion as opposed to being automatically grouped into one based on the geographical location of the hospital they were born in.
Allen Stairs
September 27, 2012
(changed September 27, 2012)
Permalink
The term "child abuse" is loaded enough that I'm going to set it aside. And I'm going to restrict myself mainly to one point.
You seem to assume that religion is always a matter of "blind faith" and that if parents bring their children up in a religious tradition, this is inevitably a ma... Read more
Would an omnipotent and omniscient being be bound by the laws of logic? If so, to what degree?
Stephen Maitzen
September 27, 2012
(changed September 27, 2012)
Permalink
Yes. Completely. The tricky question is why. It's tempting to answer that necessarily everything is bound by the laws of logic because the alternative -- the claim that something isn't bound by the laws of logic -- is necessarily false. But, as I suggested in my reply to Question... Read more
Is computer science a "science" in the same way as the natural sciences? Sometimes I think it more closely resembles math, in that the kind of reasoning it is engaged in is in some sense a priori.
William Rapaport
September 27, 2012
(changed September 27, 2012)
Permalink
Parts of computer science are like other sciences, parts are certainly like mathematics, and parts are also like engineering. Some people have argued that it is a natural science, others that it is an "artificial" science, still others that it is not a science but a branch of engine... Read more
Recently someone asked a question about the existence or non existence of god and miracles. Basically they were asking how, if an event occurs in space time, could we ever consider that event a miracle, since being in space time the event would have an identifiable cause and therefore could not be considered a miracle. The answer to me seems to be readily apparent, and I wanted to see what you thought. That is, a miracle by analytic reasoning seems to me to be something that does not occur in space time. So the problem is solved simply by observing that if an event occurs in space time then analytically and a priori we know it is not a miracle, just as a married man is analytically and a priori not a bachelor. Of course a better answer would simply be to point out that the use of metaphors like "miracle" may just be a quite ineffective use of words, since it tempts us to hypothesize about objects that can never be given in experience and that, I agree with Kant, is the ultimate no-no! :)
Allen Stairs
September 27, 2012
(changed September 27, 2012)
Permalink
An interesting question, but I'm not quite sure I can go along with your suggestion.
First, miracles. Suppose that the story of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth occurred just as described in the Gospels. (We're not inquiring here into how likely this is; just suppose for argument's... Read more
Do academics in particular have a moral responsibility to be outspokenly critical of social injustice?
Thomas Pogge
September 28, 2012
(changed September 28, 2012)
Permalink
The journal Ethics and International Affairs had a symposium on this question very recently, see
www.ethicsandinternationalaffairs.org/2012/summer-2012-issue-26-2/--
focused mostly of the topic of world poverty as addressed by the new organization Academics Stand Against Poverty (www.aca... Read more
In many answers, here, philosophers talk about justified beliefs. I would like to ask if there is any difference between a justified belief and a rational belief.
Charles Taliaferro
September 27, 2012
(changed September 27, 2012)
Permalink
There may be some difference insofar as a justified belief is usually considered a belief that is backed up by some evidence, and there may be times when it is rational (or not irrational or unreasonable) to have a belief even if one is quite uncertain about evidence. To use a hom... Read more
How can a theist respond to the problem of evil in the specific case of mental illness? If God is omniscient and omnipotent, he knows that mental illness causes suffering, and is able to prevent it, but chooses not to. For an omniscient, omnipotent, morally-perfect god to exist, there must be a morally justifying-reason to permit this suffering. The usual theistic responses to the problem of evil do not seem to apply in the specific case of mental illness. The free will defence fails because mental illness actually suppresses free will; therefore, if God really valued free will, he would prevent mental illness. The soul-making theodicy fails because mental illness actually deprives sufferers of their ability to comprehend their existence in relation to God and His creation; therefore, if God really valued spiritual growth, He would prevent mental illness. It also won't do to say that the suffering of the mentally ill gives others the chance to be morally good, because the pharmaceutical companies that produce drugs to treat mental illness are infamously motivated by profit rather than altruism. The afterlife response fails because to be mentally ill for eternity would cause even more suffering. Skeptical theism is inconsistent with the fact that we try to treat people with mental illness to cure them; if we really believed that God had an unknown, morally-justifying reason to allow people to be mentally ill, then we would not try to cure mental illness ourselves. And, of course, the fact that we can treat mental illness shows that it is not logically impossible to do so. In light of this, how can a theist defend their belief in an omniscient, omnipotent, morally-perfect god?
Charles Taliaferro
September 23, 2012
(changed September 23, 2012)
Permalink
Great question, and I feel sure that what I will suggest in response will not strike you as adequate, but let me offer seven things to bear in mind in assessing the force of the challenge you are raising for traditional theists who believe God to be all good, omniscient, and omnipo... Read more