Recent Responses
I was having a discussion with a friend about video games, and she said, "Just imagine what we could accomplish if people took the time they invested in video games and invested it in something meaningful!" Now, setting aside the question of what is meaningful, she makes an interesting point. Obviously, the point applies equally well to television, film, music, and entertainment in general - video games are just one kind of entertainment media among many. So my question is this: do we have the right to devote some of our time to entertaining ourselves, when we could instead be devoting that time to fighting global warming, AIDS, violence, poverty, depression, cancer, and any other number of ills? How can we justify entertainment for as long as suffering continues to exist?
Nicholas D. Smith
August 4, 2011
(changed August 4, 2011)
Permalink
This is a really important question, but it is also one that too many people think is self-answering--as if it is simply obvious that if we are not feeding the poor or curing the sick (or whatever) we are simply being selfish and immoral. There are a couple of ways to resist this extreme p... Read more
The law currently defines sexual harassment as "unwanted sexual attention. There is more to the definition but in my own workplace the policy specifically defines sexual harassment as "any unwanted sexual attention". However I recently went out on a date with a girl that I wasn't interested in having "casual sex" with. She however proposed that we do just that. I therefor received "unwanted" sexual attention from her. However, I don't believe that I was harassed one bit. I have seen numerous website that declare dogmatically that women have a "right" to not experience "unwanted" sexual attention. I can't help but to think to myself that that is sheer lunacy. In my mind nobody has a right to not experience "unwanted" sexual attention and that "unwanted" sexual attention is not even a big deal. The term "unwanted" is a fairly neutral term and many things which are neither unpleasant nor pleasant can fit into that category. So how can such a obviously poorly defined definition of sexual harassment continue to persist as law and be used as workplace guidelines? I personally believe that I have a right (perhaps even a constitutional first amendment right) to show a sexual interest toward my colleagues (and that involves the risk that I will be rejected) and I feel that the way that the law currently defines sexual harassment is blatantly absurd and unfair.
Nicholas D. Smith
August 4, 2011
(changed August 4, 2011)
Permalink
As I understand it, the issue at stake here is that people (and not just women) want to be able to regard their workplace as just that--a workplace. The minute someone in that place begins to give sexual attention to someone else in that workplace, the environment is changed--and changed i... Read more
Is it abnormal to be perturbed by the fact that whatever you might do, your existence/achievements would no more than a tiny speck of dust and the differences you could make even if you try your best would not be of much value if you look at it from the grand scale?
Jonathan Westphal
August 4, 2011
(changed August 4, 2011)
Permalink
I don't believe it is abnormal to be perturbed by the fact that relative to the size of the universe we are less than specks of dust, in the sense that very many people have been perturbed by it. Russell's "A Free Man's Worship" is based on this sort of idea, and it is very much a creature... Read more
I don't know whether this question is stupid or not, but I have been thinking over it for a long time and couldn't find an answer, so decided to post it. I think that everyone does what he/she feels good by doing. Those who help others, do good to others do so because they feel good by doing so. More than helping others, i think that the motivating factor is their sense of achievement of having done something that drives them. Those who find happiness in other things like money pursue happiness in that way. Then why is it that most of the people consider, or at least show, that those who do good or help others are better than those who run after money. Both are pursuing happiness in their sense, that is being selfish. I agree that those who help others/do good make others happy certainly do a better job, but ultimately if you see it is that they feel good/satisfied/happy with their work and that's why they do it. Ultimately it boils down to the point that they are doing it for themselves, NOT for others.
Allen Stairs
August 4, 2011
(changed August 4, 2011)
Permalink
Your question isn't stupid; variations on it have been discussed many times on this site, and the issue itself has been around for a long time. There's a subtler and a less subtle point. Start with the less subtle.
You say "I think that everyone does what he/she feels good by doing. Those who h... Read more
Hi, A logically fallacious argument, as far as I understand should always be invalid - in every possible world. But take a kid's argument : This is true, because my father said so. On one hand it seems obviously invalid. Such an attitude is never smart (of course, I do not imply a case in which the father is known to be an expert in something, and therefore is a valid authority, but a kid's childish attitude). However, there is a possible world in which the father of the kid is omniscient and always telling the truth. It seems a logical possibility. But, if it is a logical possibility, then one cannot argue the argument is _logically_ invalid. Sincerely, Sam
Richard Heck
August 3, 2011
(changed August 3, 2011)
Permalink
A logically valid argument is one that has the property that, if its premises are true, then its conclusion must also be true. It's a nice question how exactly one wants to spell that out, but if we play along with the talk about "possible worlds", then we can say: A logically valid argument is... Read more
It is said that the government officials we elect represent the people. But do they represent those who voted against them as well, in a meaningful sense? (i.e. beyond the pure legal sense)? Or do they only represent the majority that elected them?
Charles Taliaferro
July 31, 2011
(changed July 31, 2011)
Permalink
That is a brilliant, timely question, especially given the current political state of play in the United States --where I live and work. In practice, it seems that some congressman (perhaps a little more commonly than senators in the USA) see themselves as largely or even only representing... Read more
If you could recommend one novel for high school students about the subject of philosophy what would it be? I'm looking for a work that is readable, entertaining and raises important philosophical issues as they relate to the Theory of Knowledge. Many people online have recommended Life of Pi or Tuesdays with Morrie. Any other suggestions? Much thanks in advance.
Charles Taliaferro
July 31, 2011
(changed July 31, 2011)
Permalink
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintainance might fit the bill, though it is a bit more oriented to metaphysics than epistemology / the theory of knowledge. I am not sure it is super entertaining, but C.S. Lewis's book Until We Have Faces is terrific; it is a re-telling of an ancient myth.... Read more
I always took the the word "tolerance" to mean to endure something until it cannot be endured anymore, i.e. something which is bearable for a while but eventually unbearable - like carrying a heavy load - eventually one has to put it down. Similarly with house guests - no matter how fond we are of them eventually we want them to leave as we cannot tolerate having them in our homes indefinitely. However, unending "tolerance" is demanded of us by our Governments - we have to endure, indefinitely, "guests" (people who do not pay their way) who stay indefinitely, always taking and never giving back. Surely what is demanded of us is not tolerance but rather suffering - and the word tolerance is used, deliberately erroneously, instead to imply that we are being virtuous when instead we are simply giving in because we have no choice - and if we do not want to give in we are accused of not being virtuous. My point is that the word "tolerance" is misused to manipulate. What are your views?
Allen Stairs
July 31, 2011
(changed July 31, 2011)
Permalink
I'm a bit puzzled by your example; I'll get to that. But first, let's check a dictionary. Here are the relevant meanings from Webster:
"To allow to be or be done without hindrance, prohibition or contradiction"
"To put up with"
You're certainly not obliged to tolerate your stale house guests in ei... Read more
Is it possible to imagine a color you've never seen before? --Noah L., age 10
Thomas Pogge
July 31, 2011
(changed July 31, 2011)
Permalink
It would not be right to raise a child in a very controlled environment where she is cut off from all that wonderful, colorful nature you get to experience every day. But we can think about such a child. So let's do this. Suppose this child is raised in such a very controlled environment where she... Read more
Over at TED.com, a website where videos are posted of speakers discussing things from consciousness and virtual reality to comedy and architecture, there are often talks dealing with issues such as hunger, AIDS, and poverty. Shockingly, to me, many people who post comments on these videos strongly oppose measures helping those suffering based on the fact that "there are already far too many people on this planet." Helping those who are currently dying or otherwise suffering, the logic goes, increases the ecological and economical burden on the world by letting more people live longer and healthier lives, which, they seem to think, will ultimately worsen conditions for everyone via lack of resources. So my question is this. Assume it is true that there are too many people on this planet (a debatable fact that depends on what metrics one uses). Is it then ethical to let millions die because helping them would further increase the ecological burden humanity places on the planet?
Thomas Pogge
July 30, 2011
(changed July 30, 2011)
Permalink
I let others answer the hypothetical. The key point to stress in response to such comments is that the assumption on which they are based is empirically false (see my answer to question 2459 at www.askphilosophers.org/question/2459). We are fortunate that the moral imperative to eradicate the mass... Read more