Recent Responses
Does the Turing test, the attempt to verify the proposition "Machines can think" through an 'imitation game', come down to a confusion over "like" and "identical with"? i.e can I say the following "If it is like x is thinking, therefore what x is doing is identical to thinking"?
William Rapaport
November 17, 2011
(changed November 17, 2011)
Permalink
That's one interpretation, but there are many others. My favorite interpretation focuses on this passage in Turing's classic 1950 essay, "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" (Mind 59:433-460):
I believe that at the end of the century the use of words and general educated opinio... Read more
Are there any ethical considerations when it comes to helping or harming representations of human beings, such as lifelike dolls, video game characters, images, or humanoid robots? Does one have a duty to help a video game character in need? Should one refrain from punching lifelike dolls for fun?
Thomas Pogge
November 17, 2011
(changed November 17, 2011)
Permalink
I don't see any moral reasons to help or protect such entities, which have no interests of their own that might be set back by being shot or stabbed on screen (video game characters and images) or in the real world (lifelike dolls and humanoid robots). But there are moral reasons to refrai... Read more
Is the obligation to behave ethically itself an ethical obligation? If not, what kind of obligation is it? It certainly doesn't seem logically necessary to behave ethically, since people do it all the time without becoming entwined in reality-shattering logical paradoxes, (although perhaps one could argue that people behaving unethically are, in a sense, schizophrenic...), and it isn't an explicit legal obligation, either.
Thomas Pogge
November 17, 2011
(changed November 17, 2011)
Permalink
I don't think it makes sense to say that there are meta-duties of the sort you contemplate. The duty to fulfill the duty to help children in need is nothing over and above the duty to help children in need. And the broader duty to fulfill one's moral duties is nothing over and above those... Read more
Hi, I graduated from college a few years ago and have since developed an extremely strong interest in Philosophy. Although I have read a considerable amount of Philosophy on my own, as an undergrad I studied History, Literature and Spanish but not any Philosophy (aside from certain concepts that were relevant to my other studies). I was wondering what I could do to have a chance to get into a quality PhD program in Philosophy. I went to a very well regarded school and my grades were excellent, but I don't have the Philosophy coursework (or recommendations from Philosophy professors). Thank you in advance for any advice.
Thomas Pogge
November 17, 2011
(changed November 17, 2011)
Permalink
One obvious way of getting into a really good philosophy PhD program is to do a master's first. The following website provides some good initial advice: www.philosophicalgourmet.com/maprog.asp
Log in to post comments
It seems to me that Kant's categorical imperative implies that we all have a duty to procreate. Is this actually the case? I say this because it seems that any person choosing not having children would be forced to admit that, if their behavior was made a universal law, society would collapse, with a slowly aging and ailing population and nobody to take care of them. Society would die out, and the last generation before the end would be helpless geriatrics suffering the problems of old age with nobody younger to look after them. So do Kantian ethics actually demand that we have children? Or is there a subtler way of looking at the issue?
Thomas Pogge
November 17, 2011
(changed November 17, 2011)
Permalink
I used exactly this example in an essay published over 20 years ago as one of the arguments in support of a more subtle interpretation that had been first proposed by Tim Scanlon. On this reading, it is the permission one is claiming for oneself that is to be universalized. So instead of a... Read more
In the bhuddist religion, the aim is obviously to become "enlightened" or as it could be redefined "a state of inner unwavering happiness" however along with being englightened one must take away his/her desires for material objects, relationships, negative emotions etc. So if ones family was to be brutally be tortured and killed, one would see it as a change of energy, and feel no pain. Assuming that this is the only way to be permanently happy, could it be considered that to become enlightened would be to deny being human, and so would become like a machine that does not care. Year 10 - Hale Highschool
Allen Stairs
November 17, 2011
(changed November 17, 2011)
Permalink
It's a good question, but I think it may rest on a misunderstanding of Buddhism. None of the Buddhist teachers I know think that Buddhism is a path to not feeling pain. If even the most enlightened Buddhist puts her hand on a hot stove, it will hurt. If people we love are hurt, we will fee... Read more
If humans are nothing more than the interaction of DNA and environmental stimuli does this give us any hope for life after death? this may sound paradoxical, but if I am composed merely of memories and perceptions brought on by the course of nature is it possible my perceptions could return acting on a different substrate- I.e my perceptions and memories live on through my ancestors or people who shared a similar life experience? If they remember me in their dreams is this in fact an aspect of myself that lives on? Can a spirit be contained in a mere cause-effect relationship? If someone in the future is placed in a similar dillema to myself, is this like an echo in time? would they not share some of my perceptions? If the thoughts were merely part of an evolving system and conciousness is all action-reaction would this be a form of "resonance", Simpy because of a shared experience? Are the memories dead people not evolving just as we are? For example Jesus Christ is remembered as both a saint and a fraud and even a cosmic zombie! I don't believe in ghosts or hauntings or a god, but I do believe that all relationships are causal, and if we do have a soul it is contained within our interaction, not within a substrate. Thus we would be like a song sung throughout time. Am I nuts for even thinking about this so hard? Thanks for your time, its very much appreciated!! Lex
Nicholas D. Smith
November 16, 2011
(changed November 16, 2011)
Permalink
There is an awful lot going on in your question, and some of it I do not feel qualified to respond to. In particular, I think a complete answer to your question would require a good deal of work from contemporary theories of the mind, as well as how these theories inform questions of... Read more
Hi. Let's assume that there's no higher power that could establish objective norms of morality. Then let's think of a fictitious situation in which a certain individual could greatly benefit himself by killing several innocent civilians. Even though this potential murderer tends to comply with laws and widely accepted moral rules created within society, he's a hypocrite and thus is willing to make exceptions when it comes to striving for his own personal goals. Imagine that in this hypothetical scenario the same person committing a crime could know for sure that no one will ever catch him, he will never have to serve a prison sentence, and there will be no blame whatsoever to damage his reputation. Moreover, we make an assumption that this individual will not feel any remorse for this horrific act of violence. So, in this particular situation, taking into account the potential murderer's point of view, why shouldn't a crime be committed?
Nicholas D. Smith
November 16, 2011
(changed November 16, 2011)
Permalink
The question is quite complex, and so I will try to be careful about breaking down my answer into appropriate parts.
(1) The question seems to presuppose that there can be no "objective norms of morality" unless these are established by "higher power." I really don't agree with this... Read more
how big a factor is the translation when trying to understand philosophical works written in another language which we do not understand? For example, in the translation I read of Das Kapital, Marx talked about "the means of production" which seemed like an awkward and confusing term. Then one day the "aha" light bulb went off, and i realized that this term meant "technology" and suddenly his whole theory of dialectical materialism made great sense to me.
Andrew Pessin
November 16, 2011
(changed November 16, 2011)
Permalink
Good question -- and the answer (clearly) is "very big"! .... Or at least it can be ... It's hard enough to interpret a philosopher (get clear on just what his/her claims and arguments are) when you share a language, and when you're in the same time period -- and at least with our contemp... Read more
I have a question about food and objectivity. My friend insists that all opinions about the value of certain instances of a type of food being better than others are merely subjective. I disagree with this and when I say that, for example, "my mom's chocolate chip cookies are better than store bought cookies" I believe that there is actually some objective basis to this. I would cite as evidence the fact that my mom uses higher quality ingredients, puts more care and attention into baking, and that generally others agree that her cookies are quite good and preferable to store bought cookies. Is there any truth to this idea about food more generally? Can there actually be some objective basis for judging which food is better?
Andrew Pessin
November 16, 2011
(changed November 16, 2011)
Permalink
Great question! Two great sources for this is David Hume's famous essay, "A Standard of Taste" and Mackie's "The Subjectivity of Values" -- a quick response to you, here, is to suggest that perhaps you are BOTH right (a happy verdict!): when we can specify in advance precisely which qua... Read more