Recent Responses

There are certain people who, when hearing of a person's complaints about their working conditions, are fond of saying that those complaining should "just leave" and get work elsewhere, instead of demanding that employers foster better working conditions (which would presumably amount to restricting the freedom of the employers). In some cases, the suggestion might be even more extreme, telling the person that they ought to change fields entirely. My question is, is a system in which people's only options for improving their quality of life on the job is to leave and hope to find work somewhere better a fair system? Are the conveniences of employers more important than the needs of the employees?

Charles Taliaferro January 17, 2012 (changed January 17, 2012) Permalink A great question! I believe (perhaps wrongly) that the question, especially the last one, does not have a single, general answer, however there are factors we can identify and find some agreement about. Some of these factors seem to involve loyalty, reasonable expectations, gratitude... Read more

Justice

Many pundits speak about the erosion of personal responsibility by the "nanny state". But personal responsibility isn't exactly fun; it can be taxing and costly to have to suffer for your mistakes, your free choices or even your nature. Why shouldn't the government ease the burden of personal responsibility on citizens?

Charles Taliaferro January 17, 2012 (changed January 17, 2012) Permalink Great question. I suppose that the general assumption in liberal democracy is that there should be a presumption of liberty in most areas of life except in cases of harm or extreme offense or in some cases where there is a substantial risk of avoidable suffering. So, in most states in... Read more

Existence

What is the meaning of life? What is the purpose of anything existing? Does existence exist for no apparent logical and answerable reason and therefore does not need an explanation and simply is a product of random, anomalous events, or does existence exist because there is a purpose or reason for me and existence to exist? I tend to think if there is a purpose behind existence there must be something guiding existence because existence has a purpose otherwise why exist at all. Am I alive and self aware and exist because something made me exist or am I the result of a randomness of phenomenon that allowed me to develop the conscious ability to question my existence and therefore find some justification for my existence even though the questioning of existence is pointless in any case? In other words do I and everyone else exist for a reason or is there meant to be no apparent reason for my existence therefore I am allowed free reign to believe I exist for some apparent reason which may or may not be a valid reason because existence does not occur for any specific reason or result except what I decide to make of my existence?

Charles Taliaferro January 17, 2012 (changed January 17, 2012) Permalink You certainly have asked THE big question! Many religious thinkers do believe that there is a meaning to life and a purpose as well. For a good representation of a broadly Christian point of view (but one that would be satisfying to traditional Jews, Muslims, and some Hindus) you mig... Read more

Ethics

Is there such a thing as an obligation to trust? It seems a peculiar kind of obligation, if it exists. Suppose that although my fiancée has always been faithful, on the night before our wedding I endeavor to test her fidelity. To this end, I hire an attractive man who attempts to seduce her in private. My fiancée rebuffs the man, at which point I present myself to her and happily explain that she has passed the test. I think most would say that my fiancée would be rightfully indignant in this case, that I have wronged her somehow. Does this show that I violated an obligation to trust my fiancée? Is that obligation contingent on her history of fidelity (such that a history of cheating might justify the test)? Perhaps we can explain the wrongdoing without reference to trust--by way of a prohibition on manipulating or deceiving others, say. Or perhaps no wrong committed here at all.

Bette Manter January 15, 2012 (changed January 15, 2012) Permalink Framed in the language of duty, as you have done, I cannot see how you can universalize this as a duty, find it in natural law or divine command. A rule consequentialist might weigh in and say what greater good was your aim or even, do brides, as a rule, betray their intended on the night b... Read more

History

Is there any scientific evidence that history proceeds in dialectical fashion ala Marx and Hegel?

Bette Manter January 15, 2012 (changed January 15, 2012) Permalink I do not have the scientific or historical chops to answer you adequately, but the question made me smile - the dialectical thinker discovers the dialect everywhere - evidence be damned! I love Hegel and yet I am sad to report that as I look at the news, especially current political discour... Read more

Feminism Rationality

Why do some feminists like to criticize rationality so much? Doesn't that just reinforce the idea that women are less rational?

Bette Manter January 15, 2012 (changed January 15, 2012) Permalink Let me begin by saying that any meaningful discourse requires reason,including feminist attempts to mount a critique of reason! Feminists differ significantly, so there is no one answer to your query, butthere seems to be a shared conviction that rationality alone is insufficient toshed li... Read more

Ethics Happiness

If the market for certain entertainment media - films, video games, television, etc. - prefers to consume media that is sexist, racist, heteronormative, or otherwise prejudiced against certain groups, should the creators of such media nevertheless try to produce "fair" media? Why? As a consumer who wants fair depictions in media, what right do I have to demand that media be fair to minorities, if that means denying the majority what they want?

Oliver Leaman January 14, 2012 (changed January 14, 2012) Permalink There are a few reasons to not just give people what they want. First, how do they know unless they are given alternatives? Secondly, what they want may have dangerous consequences for others and be incompatible with life in a civilized society. The demand for fairness is a basic moral dem... Read more

Mind

What would a robot have to be able to do, or what would it have to be, for us to consider it a sentient being as opposed to a non-sentient automaton? Please note I am using the term "robot" here in a broad sense, including such obviously sentient (fictional) constructs such as C-3PO of Star Wars fame. I don't consider "robot" and "sentient being" to be mutually exclusive terms. I'm interested in what fundamentally distinguishes sentient beings from automatons that merely mimic sentience.

Gabriel Segal April 26, 2012 (changed April 26, 2012) Permalink Somewhat in line Searle's arguments in "Minds, Brains and Programs" I would say that the key is: original intentionality. Intentionality means something like 'aboutness' or 'representation', in the way that the sentence 'Hesperus is a planet' is about Venus, or represents Venus ('Hesperus' bei... Read more

Justice

Should I care about the starving people in Africa? Am I responsible for feeding them? With all the Christmas charity drives, is it not unfair to ignore the poor right here in my country and instead give money to people in distant country? I feel sorry for them, but I'm not sure about how morally obligated I am to donate my money.

Andrew Pessin January 13, 2012 (changed January 13, 2012) Permalink Terrific, and challenging, question, and a very relevant one given all the 'occupy' movements of the past few months -- where many people (young, American, etc.) who are better off than most other people on Earth are demanding to be even better off, rather than demanding to help those who a... Read more

Mind

What would a robot have to be able to do, or what would it have to be, for us to consider it a sentient being as opposed to a non-sentient automaton? Please note I am using the term "robot" here in a broad sense, including such obviously sentient (fictional) constructs such as C-3PO of Star Wars fame. I don't consider "robot" and "sentient being" to be mutually exclusive terms. I'm interested in what fundamentally distinguishes sentient beings from automatons that merely mimic sentience.

Recent Responses

Pages