Recent Responses
Suppose that you had two bags each with an infinite number of blue marbles. Suppose you also had another bag of infinity red marbles. If you mixed those three bags what are your odds of getting a red marble? Obviously this isn't a realistic experiment but is it 1 in 3 or 50%?
Allen Stairs
May 18, 2012
(changed May 18, 2012)
Permalink
I'd suggest that there needn't be a determinate answer without adding more detail. In particular, the notion of "mixing" the three collections would need to be spelled out. Suppose the "mixing" works this way: take 10 marbles from the red bag and one from each of the blue bags. Put in an infinite v... Read more
Mutual funds differ in their investment targets but more and more they are just indexes and in aggregate they essentially bet the entire market all the time. They must do this because of their size and inability to hold to much in any individual stock. Does this not turn the stock market and Wall Street into a total sham or time bomb when there is no real connection between investment and business fundamentals. This is not the question of dart boards this is the question of an unending river of money showering down on firms fortunate enough to get into the listing. In general firms do not pay dividends. Clearly this is nation trying to subsidize its base of firms but what does it do to consumers? Is this not a Ponzi scheme?
Oliver Leaman
May 17, 2012
(changed May 17, 2012)
Permalink
I don't know what mutual funds you are thinking of, but many of them are totally different from your description of the market as a whole. You can invest in a vast variety of different kinds of funds, including those that pay big dividends. There is a close connection between the health of the real... Read more
Many of those who favor online piracy (or who oppose restrictive laws meant to combat piracy, at least), argue that piracy does not actually hurt movie and music producers. They claim that most pirates would be unlikely to buy the products in question even if they were unable to download them for free. In restricting piracy, we aren't actually restoring revenue to the producers or anything of the sort. Those producers would be just as successful or unsuccessful whether piracy were allowed or not. Is this sensible? Let's say that I download a movie. If it is really true that I would not buy the movie in any case, does that make downloading it okay?
Andrew Pessin
May 24, 2012
(changed May 24, 2012)
Permalink
Great issue. If you think about it on an individual level, of course "piracy" is wrong: you are stealing that work from its producer. (The word "piracy" pretty much reflects that!). And as long as there are specific copyright laws that forbid it, then doing so is obviously wrong (at least in the... Read more
Is it ethical to kill someone in self-defense? My instinct was yes at first, but upon further reflection, in a situation where it's "you or them", I can't seem to think of a reason to kill someone in self-defense, other than the fact that you simply want to live. After all, you're still taking a human life. (Also if you could explain why it is or isn't ethical would help me out a lot thanks!)
Stephen Maitzen
May 17, 2012
(changed May 17, 2012)
Permalink
My colleagues' examples show me that my intuitions aren't thoroughly consequentialist. I think an innocent person (and maybe any person) always has a right to lethal self-defense if needed to avoid a lethal threat. An innocent person's (and maybe any person's) sacrificing his/her life is always... Read more
Is it ethical to kill someone in self-defense? My instinct was yes at first, but upon further reflection, in a situation where it's "you or them", I can't seem to think of a reason to kill someone in self-defense, other than the fact that you simply want to live. After all, you're still taking a human life. (Also if you could explain why it is or isn't ethical would help me out a lot thanks!)
Stephen Maitzen
May 17, 2012
(changed May 17, 2012)
Permalink
My colleagues' examples show me that my intuitions aren't thoroughly consequentialist. I think an innocent person (and maybe any person) always has a right to lethal self-defense if needed to avoid a lethal threat. An innocent person's (and maybe any person's) sacrificing his/her life is always... Read more
Is it ethical to force people to do the right thing?
Charles Taliaferro
May 16, 2012
(changed May 16, 2012)
Permalink
This question is particularly troubling when it comes to Good Samaratan Laws, laws that would penalize persons who do not aid those in trouble. Some have argued that aiding others should be a matter of freely exercised virtues like courage (or exercising the good of compassion) rather than co... Read more
The thing about physical science is that it seems likes it doesn't tell you anything that couldn't be simulated by a virtual reality device of some sort. Am I wrong? Can science test that hypothesis in a reasonable way? It seems like the only real and accessible metaphysical qualities are things like color. Color is real whether we are looking at a virtual reality simulation or something else. "Has science allowed us to go deeper than that to an actual world behind manifestations such as color?
Stephen Maitzen
May 13, 2012
(changed May 13, 2012)
Permalink
I think there are limits to how far the skeptical worry you describe can go. Your reference to virtual-reality devices is telling: "The thing about physical science is that it seems like it doesn't tell you anything that couldn't be simulated by a virtual reality device of some sort." Notice th... Read more
Is it considered possible to be consciously aware of an object or thought without experiencing feelings, or is "feelings" just another word for conscious awareness?. If this question can't be dismissed, which philosophers have explored it?
Bette Manter
May 23, 2012
(changed May 23, 2012)
Permalink
I have no expertise on zombies or blindsight, but there is a wondrous episode on RadioLab.org in their archives entitled "Words." It raises more questions than answers, but that is what we philosophers do, is it not?
bjm
Log in to post comments
Is "understanding" a proposition necessary, but not sufficient, for "believing" that same proposition? Further, where could one find arguments (discussion) for and/or against either position?
Stephen Maitzen
May 10, 2012
(changed May 10, 2012)
Permalink
I confess I'm puzzled by Prof. Heck's reply. He defends the following three assumptions:
(1) If you understand a proposition, then you also understand its negation.(2) It is necessary, if you are to believe a proposition, to understand it.(3) It's perfectly possible to believe a proposition and n... Read more
In December of 2011, I was invited to speak to the police concerning a former roommate of mine who has been accused of murder (and posted a question concerning that here on the site). Just this week, I received a notification that I am to appear again, this time in court, to testify as a witness. Having heard horror stories of people with faulty memories being imprisoned for a year or more because they provided false testimony without knowing they did so, or because their testimony didn't overlap with what they told the police, I am now very worried (I am an expat living in Germany, and I've not yet been able to talk to a proper lawyer to determine how strict the laws concerning court testimony are). Perhaps that is somewhat narcissistic of me, given the circumstances, but the fact remains. I wonder, then, what kind of "truth" I am supposed to tell the court. The truth seems to be that I *believe* that my former roommate behaved in way X, spoke of topic Y and didn't speak of Z, with my only justification being that that's how things seem in my memory - which, given the 2-3 years since the time I lived with that roommate, may well be faulty. Is my belief that something happened because my memories say it happened justified? Or is the only truth that "I, based on my potentially faulty memory, hold the potentially false belief that [such-and-such] happened?" I think it might be best to preface everything I say with "I believe that... As far as I can remember, it seems... I'm not sure, but I believe that..." Is that a valid way of circumventing the problem of not knowing whether I can trust my own memories?
Oliver Leaman
May 10, 2012
(changed May 10, 2012)
Permalink
Yes, something the court has to take account of is the passage of time since the event and it is entirely reasonable for your memory to be an issue that has to be taken into account. You may be closely questioned on this and to be honest you will have to be frank on how reliable at this stage you t... Read more