Recent Responses
Ethics and Roofing My spouse and I live in a house whose roof who has been in place for 15-20 years of a purported life expectancy of 25 years. Recently we had large hail stones and strong winds that accompanied a nearby tornado. We have homeowner’s insurance that covers storm damage—a particular type that provides “full replacement value” for legitimate claims (which we pay for by an increased cost). The insurance company told me that damage caused by a storm is a legitimate claim, and that I should get an estimate and call them back. A roofer who looked at the roof estimates that the entire roof would need to be replaced at a cost of $7,000-10,000 (minus the deductible) It turns out that my spouse and I have different views of this situation. My position is that insurance represents an investment you make to protect yourself against major setbacks. The fact that the storm happened towards the end of the roof’s life-cycle is irrelevant My spouse, however, considers it unethical and even “sleazy”, since we would have to replace the roof at some point through its natural wearing out, and the current situation was just a way to get a new roof for little money. We probably would never have taken any action had not the roofer himself informed us about that insurance would cover storm damage (this might very well be true.) My spouse feels that the situation would be different if we had just recently installed a new roof, since its value would be higher and thus more worthy of a claim. What is your opinion of the ethics of this situation?
Thomas Pogge
May 1, 2011
(changed May 1, 2011)
Permalink
There is a difference here between what you are legally entitled to claim and the loss you have actually incurred. You believe that it is permissible to claim the former, larger amount. Your wife believes that you should claim no more than the latter, smaller amount.
Suppose the difference would only... Read more
Hi. I live in Israel. I do not wish to be recruited to the Israeli army for two main reasons. One is the preservation of my liberty (the mandatory service in the IDF is 3 years), the second is the desire to refrain from harming others. While I am not sure how to justify this principles in a general theory of "the universe", I am firmly certain that in Israel, the political situation enables me to use them in order to avoid being recruited to the IDF. However, there is a third variable that keeps nagging me - justice. If I do not serve, other people are protecting me, and there is nothing I can do to avoid it. Can you help? Suggest a line of reasoning and investigation? Sincerely, Shmuel
Thomas Pogge
May 1, 2011
(changed May 1, 2011)
Permalink
I am not so sure that you can get out of your military service simply by saying that you wish to preserve your liberty and don't wish to harm other people. You may know the present situation better than I do, but I know of a number of young Israelis who ended up in jail for refusing to serve in the ID... Read more
I was wondering if you have any recommendations for works of fiction that have a clear, prevalent philosophical underpinning. For example, I enjoyed the theme of absurdism in Albert Camus' _The Plague_, but I don't have enough free time right now to commit to something like _Atlas Shrugged_. Perhaps there is a fairly accessible and thought-provoking philosophical work of fiction that consists of between 250 and 400 pages? Thanks.
Gordon Marino
April 28, 2011
(changed April 28, 2011)
Permalink
Camus' THE STRANGER and THE FALL would also be great. As well as Miguel Unamuno's, "St Manuel the Good Martyr." For another short masterwork there is Dostoyevsky's NOTES FROM UNDERGROUND and Tolstoy's DEATH OF IVAN ILYCH. Hope this helps. Happy reading.
Log in to post comm... Read more
Suppose that once a year, Alice donates $25,000 to a children's hospital, and that this sum allows them to hire a part-time employee to take care of the children. Bob, on the other hand, volunteers for twenty hours a week at an identical children's hospital, which saves them from having to hire a part-time employee that would cost them $25,000 a year. Some people might say that what Bob is doing is more ethically admirable than what Alice is doing, because Bob is dedicating time he can't get back, whereas Alice is "merely" throwing money at the hospital. Is Bob's behavior really more admirable than Alice's? If so, why? Why might we assume such a thing?
Charles Taliaferro
April 28, 2011
(changed April 28, 2011)
Permalink
Great question(s). I wonder if we have simply different goods in play here rather than clear cut cases of greater and lesser goods. I wonder if there are at least four distinctions that may help us think through your question. I will do my best to dinstinguish a few of them, though in t... Read more
What reasons do atheists have for caring about other people or for being socially responsible? Is there any difference other than semantics that differentiates those reasons from reasons derived from religious beliefs? (in other words, reasons to care about others or for being socially responsible seem only to derive from one of two sources: (a) "enlightened expanded selfishness" (if we all do it the world is a better place), or (b) because somehow it is the "right" thing to do, and the only issue in this case is the source that makes it "right"). Whenever I discuss this question with self-professed atheists, their arguments come across as sounding like "I don't like the term 'god'" or "I don't like the bad things that have been done in the name of organized religion". In other words, they also believe in something greater than the individual and are arguing over what to call it or how to describe it or where its justification comes from, yet underneath it all, they spring from a belief that something important that is greater than the individual is the reason. In other words, are atheists and theists both believers in the same fundamental concept and merely are arguing over how to describe it? Thanks! Joe.
Allen Stairs
April 28, 2011
(changed April 28, 2011)
Permalink
I'd suggest that atheists have more or less the same reasons that theists caring about others, treating others well.
Of course, there's a possible reply that I'd like to set aside: perhaps some theists are decent to others only because they're afraid God will punish them if they aren't. But I do... Read more
What reasons do atheists have for caring about other people or for being socially responsible? Is there any difference other than semantics that differentiates those reasons from reasons derived from religious beliefs? (in other words, reasons to care about others or for being socially responsible seem only to derive from one of two sources: (a) "enlightened expanded selfishness" (if we all do it the world is a better place), or (b) because somehow it is the "right" thing to do, and the only issue in this case is the source that makes it "right"). Whenever I discuss this question with self-professed atheists, their arguments come across as sounding like "I don't like the term 'god'" or "I don't like the bad things that have been done in the name of organized religion". In other words, they also believe in something greater than the individual and are arguing over what to call it or how to describe it or where its justification comes from, yet underneath it all, they spring from a belief that something important that is greater than the individual is the reason. In other words, are atheists and theists both believers in the same fundamental concept and merely are arguing over how to describe it? Thanks! Joe.
Allen Stairs
April 28, 2011
(changed April 28, 2011)
Permalink
I'd suggest that atheists have more or less the same reasons that theists caring about others, treating others well.
Of course, there's a possible reply that I'd like to set aside: perhaps some theists are decent to others only because they're afraid God will punish them if they aren't. But I do... Read more
What books would serve as a comprehensive overview of philosophical and mathematical logic?
Richard Heck
April 27, 2011
(changed April 27, 2011)
Permalink
These are very large fields, so I'm not sure a comprehensive overview is really possible. (Though there is the umpteen volume Handbook of Philosophical Logic.) That said, there is a new book out quite recently, by John Burgess, titled Philosophical Logic, that gives a good introduction to that a... Read more
Do artists have a responsibility to ensure that their art does not have a negative impact on society, i.e. that their art does not promote discrimination or violence?
Sean Greenberg
April 24, 2011
(changed April 24, 2011)
Permalink
The question of whether an artist has any moral responsibility whatsoever with regard to the content or the impact of her work is fascinating, and there are many historical examples relevant to it. (One case that leaps immediately to my mind is that of Leni Riefenstahl, treated at length by S... Read more
It seems like our society hold a number of bigoted beliefs about children. Even on this website a philosopher made the claim that children have poor impulse control and that they tend to think the world revolves around them. I don't know if there is any good evidence to support such a claim but I have my doubts. Perhaps that is a good description of most adults as well. Have any philosophers addressed the pervasive prejudice against children?
Richard Heck
April 24, 2011
(changed April 24, 2011)
Permalink
One of our graduate students at Brown, Jed Silverstein, is writing a dissertation concerned with issues in this vicinity, so I asked him if he'd like to answer this question. Here is what he had to say:
"In recent times, political philosophers such as Susan Okin, Eamonn Callan, and Rob Reich ha... Read more
Is it conceivable that an intelligent species could evolve, say on another planet or in the future, that has radically different ethical and moral values and paradigms? Would they be wrong? Or would every possible intelligent species naturally come to similar conclusions about ethics as we have, divide into the same camps and argue about the same issues?
Sean Greenberg
April 24, 2011
(changed April 24, 2011)
Permalink
Your question goes to the heart of the basis for moral judgments and their justification. If moral judgments are supposed to reflect universal standards that are binding on all possible rational beings--Kant, for example, seems to conceive of ethics this way--then it would not be possible for... Read more