Recent Responses
People suppose that hard science is more objective than other subjects such as psychology. But doesn't science require good instincts, judgment, and intuition like any other field does? People say well all the scientists agree that global warming will have a big impact on the world but how can I really be so sure that it's as simple as "science sees it some way so it must be correct?" Isn't it just an unfounded prejudice that scientific judgements can be validated in some essentially simple and uncomplicated way?
Miriam Solomon
July 9, 2011
(changed July 9, 2011)
Permalink
You are asking a few questions here. One is whether you should take it on trust (or authority) that scientists are in agreement on a scientific questions such as global warming. Another is whether or not assessing scientific evidence is "simple" (and I think you are right in suggesting that it i... Read more
Are there any non-academic journals that someone who isn't a professional philosopher with a degree in philosophy or affiliated with a university could publish a rigorous philosophical paper?
Miriam Solomon
July 9, 2011
(changed July 9, 2011)
Permalink
If you have a rigorous philosophy paper, why not send it to an academic journal? You do not need to have a PhD in philosophy or a job as a philosopher to submit to a journal. Best to look for a journal that does "masked" ("blinded") review, so that your identity is not known to the referees and... Read more
If time is infinite does this give us any hope for life after death? After all if time is infinite, it is inevitable that all the cells in my body (my DNA etc) will be reconstructed in some far off day and age.
Allen Stairs
July 8, 2011
(changed July 8, 2011)
Permalink
I'm not quite ready to go along with my colleague's answer, but my answer isn't any more hopeful.
If time has the structure of the real line (as we usually think) then even if it's infinite, every moment is only a finite time away from now. (Compare: every real number is only a finite distance from... Read more
When a child is born of a mixed union between a black and a white person, white people and the media tend to consider this child to be black. When this child becomes an adult, people will assume he or she is black until informed that there was a white parent as well. As a white person, this used to seem natural to me, since mixed children look more like black people than white people. As I get older and think about these things more, though, I wonder; does this really make any sense, or is this just a default assumption I've unconsciously acquired, with no actual physiological base? Do black people look at mixed children and think that these children are basically white, unless informed there is a black parent in the mix? Or is there some truth to the notion that racially mixed children lean more in appearance towards their non-white parent? (We seem to have the same assumptions concerning mixed white and Asian children, for example)
Lee McBride
July 8, 2011
(changed July 8, 2011)
Permalink
Yes, inthe United States, the child of a blackand white couple is typically labeled black. Unfortunately, many do not recognize the historical relationship betweenracial categorization and white privilege. In short, whiteness was conceived in the 18th Century as a mark of privilege.Racial categorizat... Read more
Actions can obviously be unethical, but what about emotions, or opinions? If you have an opinion or an emotion but do not act on them in an unethical way, can they still be unethical? Is hate, for example, an unethical emotion? Is the opinion that illegal immigrants should be shot at the border an unethical opinion, if one does not in any way act on this opinion or political support such measures?
Charles Taliaferro
July 8, 2011
(changed July 8, 2011)
Permalink
There seem to be forms of hedonistic utilitarianism (maximize pleasure) that might allow for the permissibility of unethical opinions, provided they are not likely to lead to acts of great disutility and the one who has such opinions enjoys holding them. That, in any case, was once advanced a... Read more
When someone is indicted for a crime, it's standard for newspaper reports to state that he only "allegedly" did whatever he is accused of doing. But suppose that the guilt of the defendant is extremely well confirmed (a thousand witnesses saw him, and we have an HD-quality recording of the incident). If the trial has yet to arrive at a verdict, should reporters still insist upon use of the "alleged" qualification? In other words, should standards of assertion in journalism be tied to standards of assertion in judicial proceedings?
Oliver Leaman
July 7, 2011
(changed July 7, 2011)
Permalink
It is often not precisely what someone did that is significant in the case of the law, but how it is classified. However many people saw him do it, the issue is often what it is that they saw
Right now I am banging away at the keys of my computer, but I could be blackmailing someone, sending a love... Read more
We say "Blood runs thicker than water", but is there any philosophical tenability to this idea? If I feel my girlfriend's parents are mistreating her, should I step in, or should I keep my nose out of another family's internal business? Is it acceptable for me to prioritize non-family-members over members of my own family in cases where neither side clearly has greater need/right? Should children always turn to their parents before anyone else when they need help?
Oliver Leaman
July 7, 2011
(changed July 7, 2011)
Permalink
Rather a lot of questions there which have at their root the issue of whether we should take family as a relevant ethical issue. To say it is relevant is not to say that it always is stronger than any countervailing right. An adult who strikes a child may be in a morally stronger position if the ch... Read more
If time is infinite does this give us any hope for life after death? After all if time is infinite, it is inevitable that all the cells in my body (my DNA etc) will be reconstructed in some far off day and age.
Allen Stairs
July 8, 2011
(changed July 8, 2011)
Permalink
I'm not quite ready to go along with my colleague's answer, but my answer isn't any more hopeful.
If time has the structure of the real line (as we usually think) then even if it's infinite, every moment is only a finite time away from now. (Compare: every real number is only a finite distance from... Read more
How can we say that it is rude to do a certain thing but not unethical? Isn't that like saying that it is morally okay to be rude?
Allen Stairs
July 7, 2011
(changed July 7, 2011)
Permalink
A good point. Usually it's not okay to be rude. It's typically a minor moral offense, but rudeness is generally wrong because it hurts or offends people gratuitously.
That said, we can dig a bit deeper. What's rude and what isn't depends heavily on conventions that vary a fair bit. In some settings... Read more
Do we have a right to try to convince people to abandon demonstrably false, or socially harmful, opinions? Clearly we have no right to force them, but do we have the right to criticize their opinions and try and get them to engage with reality or with other human beings? Conversely, do people have a duty to adopt true beliefs whenever they have the opportunity to do so knowingly?
Gordon Marino
July 7, 2011
(changed July 7, 2011)
Permalink
I'm not sure about the rights language here but I can't imagine that there would be anything amiss with trying to dissuade someone of the notion that the earth is flat or that 2+2=5. As for adopting true beliefs, I'm not sure that we are put together so that we can choose my beliefs. If I know some... Read more