Recent Responses
Over the past few years, my wife has become a staunch antivaccinationist. (We have a son on the autism spectrum; she has bought into the discredited vaccine causation theory of autism.) She is unreachable on this topic; no facts or reason will move her from her position. Unfortunately, she has decided that our children are to have no further vaccinations. She will not compromise on this. I, of course, want our children to be protected from dangerous diseases and thus want them to be vaccinated. My question: What are my ethical obligations in this situation--to my wife, to my children, and to society? Going behind my wife's back and having the children vaccinated without her knowledge does not seem ethical. Agreeing to her demand that the children receive no further shots also seems unethical--this would put my kids at risk of disease, as well as other people. Telling my wife up front that I'm taking the children to get their shots, despite her objections, also seems problematic--they are her children also. What are my best choices here?
Eddy Nahmias
August 8, 2011
(changed August 8, 2011)
Permalink
I agree with Professor Smith. The only thing I would add may be obvious and may be something you've already tried. It sometimes helps to have third parties intervene to provide all the facts and arguments you would use to try to persuade your wife to change her mind. Here, your knowledge of w... Read more
I have asked many regular non-philosopher type folks about how to avoid appearing "rude, crude and stupid" when indicating sexual interest in women. Not many well formed answers are given to me but I am told that a necessary ingredient is subtlety. You should never be direct about your intentions. Is being direct and straightforward really rude? What does saying that you must not be straightforward imply about the nature of those intentions in the first place? What then distinguishes rude from non-rude forms of expressing sexual intention?
Allen Stairs
August 7, 2011
(changed August 7, 2011)
Permalink
It's an interesting question and not easy to answer. Let's start with what may seem to be a minor point but actually isn't. It's not right that we should never be direct. The most obvious exception is when two people already have a sexual relationship and they're both comfortable about it. But e... Read more
According to Nicholas D. Smith in response to a question about sexual harassment legislation, "The minute someone in that place begins to give sexual attention to someone else in that workplace, the environment is changed--and changed in a way that makes the workplace no longer an entirely comfortable place to work." However the fact of the matter is that a great many people marry their coworkers and that studies show only a small percentage of those relationship were started by people who accidentally met up outside of work. If the purpose of sexual harassment legislation is to ban all interaction of a sexual nature between coworkers (since all sexual attention makes the workplace an uncomfortable place to work) then those marriages could not have occurred if sexual harassment law was 100% effective in achieving its supposed purpose. Since marriage is a highly regarded social institution isn't it highly unlikely that the purpose of sexual harassment legislation is to ban all sexual interaction between coworkers? And furthermore isn't it simply untrue that sexual attention is necessarily uncomfortable if it takes place in the workplace?
Richard Heck
August 7, 2011
(changed August 7, 2011)
Permalink
As Nicholas said in response to the other question, there are questions to be asked about what is appropriate and inappropriate behavior in the workplace. And, while there are companies that prohibit co-workers from dating, most do not, which is simply to say that sexual harassment policies are... Read more
According to Nicholas D. Smith in response to a question about sexual harassment legislation, "The minute someone in that place begins to give sexual attention to someone else in that workplace, the environment is changed--and changed in a way that makes the workplace no longer an entirely comfortable place to work." However the fact of the matter is that a great many people marry their coworkers and that studies show only a small percentage of those relationship were started by people who accidentally met up outside of work. If the purpose of sexual harassment legislation is to ban all interaction of a sexual nature between coworkers (since all sexual attention makes the workplace an uncomfortable place to work) then those marriages could not have occurred if sexual harassment law was 100% effective in achieving its supposed purpose. Since marriage is a highly regarded social institution isn't it highly unlikely that the purpose of sexual harassment legislation is to ban all sexual interaction between coworkers? And furthermore isn't it simply untrue that sexual attention is necessarily uncomfortable if it takes place in the workplace?
Richard Heck
August 7, 2011
(changed August 7, 2011)
Permalink
As Nicholas said in response to the other question, there are questions to be asked about what is appropriate and inappropriate behavior in the workplace. And, while there are companies that prohibit co-workers from dating, most do not, which is simply to say that sexual harassment policies are... Read more
Are historical facts always true, throughout time? Consider the fact that Barack Obama is the forty-fourth president of the United States of America. Was it true two hundred years ago? If someone in the nineteenth century had said "Barack Obama is the forty-fourth president of the United States of America", would it have been true?
Charles Taliaferro
August 6, 2011
(changed August 6, 2011)
Permalink
This is an excellent question and one that is much debated historically and today. It has implications about freedom and determinism, logic, and the philosophy of God, good and evil. It seems that classical logic requires that propositions are either true or false. "Barack Obama is the... Read more
I have a question regarding moral philosophy as it relates to political viewpoint. I can understand why philosophers in general might have some affinity for an argument that says those of us who are relatively 'well off' have a moral duty to assist those who are temporarily (or permanently) 'in need' of assistance. However, I want to look at it from the perspective of the person who needs the help. Many of us talk about improving ourselves so that we can make a difference to others. Why do we deny the opportunity to make a difference to those who need help? Isn't that demeaning and stultifying to them? Isn't there an implicit message that 'you are not competent to take care of yourself, and so you have to rely on us to do that for you?' My father says that is because career politicians are cynical and are merely using 'we have to help others' as a reason to entrench themselves in power indefinitely at good salaries with nice benefits. He points out that certain programs are based on income percentiles, and are not based on any standard of material well-being for the recipients. He suggests that any 'safety net' program would measure "adequate food with acceptable nutrition, shelter, and clothing" and not go any further; if people want more than subsistence they should contribute something of value and trade up rather than continue to demand more for themselves merely because others have more relative to them. The bluntness of his assessment bothers me; yet I find it hard to refute his logic: why is it that programs that are ostensibly to 'help' the less fortunate so often have a way of infantilizing those receiving the help? and how can someone who truly wants to help the less fortunate achieve a 'fully realized life' that goes beyond mere physical subsistence? At one time the residents of our state psychiatric hospital grew their own food, and made many everyday craft items for daily use. They were reported to be happy to have something useful to do with their lives. Someone who said they were 'helping' them sued the state, and forced them to stop this work in contributing to their own upkeep. Now the patients sit around all day with much less to do and are reportedly far less happy now than they used to be. How did taking away a chance to feel useful help these people? and how can I either respond to my father's assertions, or find a way to influence those who claim to be 'helping' the less fortunate to look beyond only their physical needs and actually provide some 'help' that includes helping those less fortunate find meaning and worth in their life, not just daily physical comfort? Thank you very much for helping me sort through this tangle of good intentions and bad outcomes!
Charles Taliaferro
August 6, 2011
(changed August 6, 2011)
Permalink
Interesting! The case of not allowing the patients of the psychiatric hospital to produce goods seems clearly wrong, though perhaps the worry was that in cases of severely damaged persons who might not even know what they were doing this was in some way exploitive. Still, I know a terrif... Read more
Recently I was watching the famous "Powers of Ten" video which starts with a couple at a picnic and moves out to the far edges of the universe, moving ten times further out each second. After this the camera goes back to the couple and enters the hand of the man at the picnic, moving through layers of skin, blood cells, molecules, atoms and finally a haze of interacting subatomic particles. What struck me about this part of the video is that if the camera was to move beyond the boundaries of the man's hand we wouldn't be able to tell. There is no demarcation between the subatomic particles which make up the man's hand and the subatomic particles which make up the surrounding air. So, in what sense do seperate entities exist? Is seperateness an illusion inherent to the experience of beings at a macroscopic scale, similar to our illusion that objects are "solid" when in reality an atom is comprised mostly of empty space?
Marc Lange
August 5, 2011
(changed August 5, 2011)
Permalink
I love that video! Thank you for your excellent question.Of course, you are correct in saying that there is no sharp demarcation between the hand and its air around it. A water molecule that is part of the hand may at some point evaporate into the surrounding air. There is no particular moment at... Read more
I asked this question of a physicist and he told me to ask a philosopher. If one was to observe a closed, isolated region of space under vacuum conditions, i.e. there are no particles in this region and none may enter into it. Also there are no fields (i.e. gravitational, electromagnetic, etc.) acting or existing on or in this region. The only interaction with this system is as an outside observer. Can this observer notice the passing of time? If so, how? And does the act of observation make the observer part of the system, since the observer is technically interacting with it? Currently we measure time by the movement of quantum mechanical particles, such as the molecules in a ticking clock; the vibrations of atoms; and the decay of radioactive isotopes. But could we perhaps, in this hypothetical system, justify using properties of space itself, such as quantum foam or the expansion of space (expanding universe), and, if so, how would we observe these features?
Marc Lange
August 5, 2011
(changed August 5, 2011)
Permalink
Thank you for your question. Let me touch it up just a bit: There are no gravitational fields in general relativity over and above the curvature of space(time). In the spirit of the question, I will assume that the spacetime geometry is unchanging. An observer might be able to notice the passing o... Read more
Studying philosophy is always done from a certain perspective, with certain assumptions in mind. (Every century teaches philosophy in a different way). So, if I am interested in philosophy, but do not wish to adhere to a specific set of beliefs - what do I do?
Sean Greenberg
August 5, 2011
(changed August 5, 2011)
Permalink
Just an addition to Nicholas Smith's suggestion that in order to avoid adhering to a specific philosophical viewpoint, one adopt a standpoint of 'epistemic humility', which I don't think is that easily achieved. (I, for what it's worth, don't think that one can up and decide to epistemically... Read more
Let's say that I have a perfect duplicate who is psychologically continuous with me. If I get bad news from my doctor that my days are numbered, can I anticipate surviving my death?
Sean Greenberg
August 5, 2011
(changed August 5, 2011)
Permalink
A thought experiment akin to the one that you propose has been deployed by Derek Parfit, in his classic book, Reasons and Persons, which I highly recommend if you're interested in this topic, in order to argue that personal identity is "not what matters." According to Parfit--I'm simplifying... Read more