Recent Responses
Can we really blame drunk drivers? Doesn't the very state which makes them dangerous on the road (i.e. inebriation) also absolve them of responsibility for having decided to drive?
David Brink
June 30, 2011
(changed June 30, 2011)
Permalink
I just want to supplement Tom Pogge's response. Some approaches to responsibility view responsibility as a historical concept whose application depends not just on what's true of the agent at the time of action but also how the agent came to be that way. Some historical approaches to responsibili... Read more
Can we ever truly understand another's point of view? When each one of us is made up of a different set of experiences and conditioning, and using the "trainings" of life we plug in answers to the perceived questions that surround us, can one really state without a doubt to understand another's mind? The answers might be the same but how we get to them is different, so is it in fact a different answer according to the individual? Sorry i know its a few different questions, but i feel the theme is there.
Peter Smith
June 26, 2011
(changed June 26, 2011)
Permalink
Let me add a few remarks, not to disagree with Charles Taliaferro, but to help bring the discussion back to earth after wondering about zombies, etc! I understand quite a bit about my friend Jack's political point of view (we argue often enough in the pub); but I've little idea where he is coming... Read more
I am currently reading Theaetetus, for a course at university, and I am struck by the number of times Socrates discusses "God" (for example, 176c, where Socrates says "God" is utterly and perfectly righteous). Considering the fact that these dialogs were written centuries before the birth of Jesus, and the fact that the Greeks were almost certainly not Jewish, it seems odd that the translators should use a monotheistic god when translating Socrates' words. Did the Greeks actually have a serious concept of monotheism, and is this concept what is being referred to in the English translations of Theaetetus? Or is this "God" just a way for the translator to "whitewash" the ancient Greeks so as to make it easier for Christians (be it theistic Christians or non-Christians who grew up with Christian cultural heritage) to relate to the dialog? Does such a translation do justice to the original?
Allen Stairs
June 24, 2011
(changed June 24, 2011)
Permalink
I'd been hoping one of our classicists would take a stab at this, but since none has…
The Jews were not the only people in the ancient world to develop monotheistic ideas, nor, for that matter, was Judaism clearly monotheistic (as opposed to henotheistic — taking Yahweh to be their god and the mo... Read more
Is it ethical for a pharmaceutical company to keep the results of a negative clinical trial secret? Patients participate in clinical trials of an investigational drug for many reasons. One of these reasons may be the desire to benefit society. If a pharmaceutical company keeps clinical trial results secret, society will not benefit. (Companies keep negative results secret because they want to avoid benefiting a competitor or simply because there is a cost to releasing the information.) There are many adverse consequences of the failure to make negative data public. For example, other companies may unwittingly conduct clinical trials on drugs that work by the same biological mechanism subjecting many people to risks without the possibility of benefit. In addition, the negative results represent important scientific information that may guide researchers to the development of drug strategies that do provide a positive benefit for patients. When pharmaceutical companies enroll patients in a clinical trial, is an implicit inducement the patient's belief that participation will benefit society even if there is no personal benefit? If this is the case, is the company acting in an unethical manner if it does not permit society to benefit?
Oliver Leaman
June 23, 2011
(changed June 23, 2011)
Permalink
I can see some justification for wishing to nuance negative results, by claiming that they might be contradicted by future more positive results and so on, but on the whole it is important that negative results are made available generally. This has nothing to do with the wishes of the participan... Read more
If I discover someone is doing something unjust and ignore it, is it wrong for me to ignore it as 'not my business'?
Andrew Pessin
June 22, 2011
(changed June 22, 2011)
Permalink
good question, but i'm sure it's underdescribed -- there probably are cases of 'yes', cases of 'no', and cases of 'undetermined.' Depends precisely what you mean by justice etc. -- and the complex relationship between (say) justice and the law ... No doubt we have moral obligations to intervene w... Read more
With each language in the world there seems to be a set number of words, some have more it seems and some have less. My question is that in a language that has less words, is it limited in it's ability to conceptualize and describe and thus understand less about it's reality around it, or is it's simplistic view what gives a clearer view of things? Follow up: If you can't define a word without using another word, wouldn't words be subjective?
Andrew Pessin
June 22, 2011
(changed June 22, 2011)
Permalink
You may be referring (directly or indirectly, intentionally or not) to the infamous Whorf-Sapir hypothesis, in brief the idea that the structure of one's language constrains/determines one's conceptualization of and cognitive approach to the world. (If the Inuit genuinely have more words for sno... Read more
I was reading a text claiming that people who believe that God is contingent may be uncomfortable with the implications of contingency. The author cited the Barcan formula. Could you please explain what this formula means and why it's controversial? I'm not great at logic. Thanks!
Richard Heck
June 20, 2011
(changed June 20, 2011)
Permalink
Wikipedia has a decent entry on the Barcan formula. It is generally held to imply that nothing exists contingently, and that in turn is generally thought insane. I would seem to be a good example of something that exists only contingently. But there are some people who think the Barcan formula can... Read more
Suppose a very well to do doctor was married to a very bright man who happened to be a house husband. They had no children but he worked very hard maintaining their household. One day however the wife loses her job unexpectedly and asks her husband to help pitch in and get a job. He says, "well I don't want to do that." and in reply she says, "well then maybe we should get a divorce. And he says "Well, yes you can divorce me but I am entitled to half of your earnings for during the time we were married." I don't know this for sure but my gut tells me that most women would find something very wrong with that situation. It would seem wrong because it would seem like the man is responsible for his own livelihood after the relationship terminates. In most situations however the man is the bread winner and the women is the housewife and I think most people don't have a problem with a man paying half his earned income to his divorced wife. Am I wrong in my assumption that women (and men) would balk at the idea of a woman paying a house husband a hefty divorce settlement? Am I wrong in my assumption that most people wouldn't balk if the genders were reversed? Do divorce laws imply that there are fundamental perhaps ontological differences between men and women? Are there fundamental differences in the social situation of women that would justify the difference in how I imagine most people perceive the appropriateness of paying a house husband versus a housewife? What is feminism's stance on this question? Is there something fundamental and obvious here that I missing out on?
Richard Heck
June 20, 2011
(changed June 20, 2011)
Permalink
Certainly nowadays the law would require the woman to pay alimony in this situation, and I am sure there have been many such cases.
I find it hard to see how anyone who wasn't just flatly sexist might think it should be otherwise. Perhaps vestiges of sexist thinking with which we have all been sa... Read more
With each language in the world there seems to be a set number of words, some have more it seems and some have less. My question is that in a language that has less words, is it limited in it's ability to conceptualize and describe and thus understand less about it's reality around it, or is it's simplistic view what gives a clearer view of things? Follow up: If you can't define a word without using another word, wouldn't words be subjective?
Andrew Pessin
June 22, 2011
(changed June 22, 2011)
Permalink
You may be referring (directly or indirectly, intentionally or not) to the infamous Whorf-Sapir hypothesis, in brief the idea that the structure of one's language constrains/determines one's conceptualization of and cognitive approach to the world. (If the Inuit genuinely have more words for sno... Read more
Can we ever truly understand another's point of view? When each one of us is made up of a different set of experiences and conditioning, and using the "trainings" of life we plug in answers to the perceived questions that surround us, can one really state without a doubt to understand another's mind? The answers might be the same but how we get to them is different, so is it in fact a different answer according to the individual? Sorry i know its a few different questions, but i feel the theme is there.
Peter Smith
June 26, 2011
(changed June 26, 2011)
Permalink
Let me add a few remarks, not to disagree with Charles Taliaferro, but to help bring the discussion back to earth after wondering about zombies, etc! I understand quite a bit about my friend Jack's political point of view (we argue often enough in the pub); but I've little idea where he is coming... Read more