Recent Responses
This question is vague. Possibly too vague. You decide. Interpret the question as you will, I have not narrowly defined each word. I recently decided to live the ethical life. I want to hold myself up to the standard of doing the best I can. My automatic interpretation of this is utilitarianism. In fact, this seems like the obvious answer to me. But as I can see, no one ethical system is completely accepted, not utilitarianism either. As someone who knows more than I do, do you think the first step to the ethical life for me is to study ethics, or to follow my gut instinct and use my basic understanding of utilitarianism or "as much happiness generated as possible" to guide me?
Allen Stairs
December 29, 2011
(changed December 29, 2011)
Permalink
Good for you for taking what's right so seriously!
As for general advice, a few quick thoughts. First, though utilitarianism undoubtedly provides useful insights, it's not really clear that utilitarianism always gives the best answers. A quick example: the fact that a mafia leg breaker get... Read more
Hello. Thanks for all the great answers so far. A (seemingly) quick question. If everything is determined, does this mean that everything is necessary and nothing is contingent. Because if determined means 'could not be otherwise' then isn't that the same as saying it is necessary? Thank you, Christina
Eddy Nahmias
December 29, 2011
(changed December 29, 2011)
Permalink
Determinism is a thesis about the relations between states (or events) in the universe. A deterministic universe is one in which, holding fixed the past states (or events) and the laws of nature, there is only one possible future set of states (or events). So, it might appear that determ... Read more
Hi I have a hairy one for you. Imagine if you will that you have a mystical experience and you encounter the Supreme, Ultimate Absolute i.e. God. And that you can ask this being any question you desire. But being a bit of a skeptic you ask it "what question should I ask you?" Would this constitute a good test or would I simply be acting cute and incur Gods wrath? But in all seriousness if you did encounter a being claiming to be God, what would constitute proof? I figure we would probably know anyway, because I can't envision God not installing some sort of Truth recognition factor, but then I've been influenced by a lot of New Age mumbo jumbo, so I want to know what a philosopher thinks. Cheers Pasquale
Eddy Nahmias
December 29, 2011
(changed December 29, 2011)
Permalink
I like the ploy of asking an apparent Supreme Being (SB), "What would be the best question to ask you?" but only if you can also make sure that the SB answers that question. How frustrating would it be if SB responded, "You should ask me, 'What is the meaning of life?'" and then laughed a... Read more
Recently a question was asked about the nature and value of philosophy. I was surprised that only one panelist chose to respond. In his response, Gordon Marino wrote the following: "There are people who make their living doing philosophy who are really into it because they enjoy unlocking intellectual puzzles and building models." By not replying, is the implication that the other panelists agree with this assessment of what professional philosophy is? And if this is an accurate characterization of professional philosophy, why is it a department at the college level? It sounds more like the description for one of the many enrichment activities offered after school at the local elementary and middle schools. It seems to me that this cannot be an accurate description of the field, as the amount of professional philosophy done would not thereby be accounted for by the economic demand for it. Thoughts?
Alexander George
December 30, 2011
(changed December 30, 2011)
Permalink
Readers might be interested in some of the attempts by philosophers to explain their work, their problems, their philosophical passions to a non-professional audience that have appeared in The New York Times blog "The Stone": http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/the-stone/.... Read more
In some schools where I live, children are made to sing the national anthem every morning at school. Children who do not wish to do so can opt-out, in which case they are made to take their chairs outside the classroom, sit, and wait until the singing is over. Those working for the education board claim that the possibility of opting out means that nobody is being forced to do anything. Yet if the de facto situation is that children are made to sing the anthem, and that they are visibly segregated from the other students for their or their parents' choice, can that really be true? Is there no form of coercion going on whatsoever here? It seems that this situation is more coercive than an alternative, in which nobody sings the anthem at all. Is this perception correct?
Oliver Leaman
December 25, 2011
(changed December 25, 2011)
Permalink
I wonder, because it might be argued that in general people would be expected to know the national anthem, and while provision should be made for those who do not wish to, it would be a shame if no-one could sing it at school. After all, it is not as though singing it is likely to coerce... Read more
If I give money or time to a charitable organization then claim the donation on my taxes for a deduction or credit can my charitable act still be classified as such considering the fact that I receive some benefit from my actions?
David Brink
December 23, 2011
(changed December 23, 2011)
Permalink
We need to separate the legal question of whether your ability to count your contribution to charity as a charitable contribution for purposes of tax deduction should depend on your motives for contributing from the moral question about whether the moral status of your contribution should d... Read more
Can animals hope or anticipate?
Allen Stairs
December 23, 2011
(changed December 23, 2011)
Permalink
Yes, because we are animals and we can do both. But as for non-human animals, the answer depends on whether they're like us in relevant respects. In the case of anticipation, the answer at least seems to be yes. Think of a dog getting visibly excited as you get the can of food from the cup... Read more
I'm intuitively very much a consequentialist, and I have difficulty understanding intuitively how deontology could possibly be correct. Doesn't the correctness of an act ultimately boil down to what effects it has? Stabbing a person seems wrong because that would have the consequence of causing harm to someone else. If stabbing people didn't hurt them (or inconvenience them in any way, I suppose), it doesn't seem like it would be wrong at all. How can a rule or act be considered morally meaningful except in terms of the consequences it has on others?
Allen Stairs
December 22, 2011
(changed December 22, 2011)
Permalink
Suppose Simon gets enormous pleasure out of humiliating people. Is it okay for him to humiliaite someone just for the fun of it? To ask whether his pleasure is greater than the distress he causes his victim sounds like a very bad way to begin. The pleasure he takes arguably makes a bad sit... Read more
Suppose I tell my friend that leprechauns don't exist. He responds: "Well, not in THIS realm, they don't. But they MIGHT exist in some hitherto undiscovered realm." To what extent does the claim 'X exists' depend on its being discoverable, or knowable? As a curious person, this question has really bothered me the past few days. There's something comforting about having knowledge, and that there might be an infinite amount of unknowables is rather disconcerting to me. Does Ayer's position -- that for a claim to be meaningful it must either be tautological or empirically veriable -- apply here? If someone could shed some light on this quandary, I'd be immensely appreciative. I really don't know my I allow myself to be bothered my these types of philosophical questions.
Charles Taliaferro
December 22, 2011
(changed December 22, 2011)
Permalink
While Ayer's verificationism has gone out of fashion (he and others could not settle on a formulation of it that did not rule out science or some such apparently meaningful discourse) there are forms of what is called anti-realism which define 'truth' in terms of warranted assertabil... Read more
I have been reading about phenomenology, and am having trouble understanding how it is different from German idealism. In both, there is a turn to the subject, and there is a sort of despair about understanding the "thing-in-itself". In both, the emphasis is on phenomena as they present themselves to us, and how we as subjects perceive, understand, interpret, and give meaning to those phenomena. So what is the difference?
Charles Taliaferro
December 22, 2011
(changed December 22, 2011)
Permalink
Good question! German idealism is so complex, but in general it may be said that phenomenology (as established by Edmund Husserl) was more bound to the study of appearances than, say, Hegel, even in his Phenomenology of Spirit. Hegel is prepared to think quite abstractly about bein... Read more