Recent Responses
Why do we consider songs by singers who use Auto-Tune (a program that corrects the pitch in their voice) for their music to be of lesser quality than songs by singers who merely use their natural voices? I can see why we might consider the artist to be less talented or worthy of admiration, but isn't a song a song, regardless of how it was made? What about visual artists who produce their art with computer graphics programs, rather than using pencils, pens or brushes? I've heard people say that some of the splendid images on sites like DeviantArt aren't art because the artists "cheated" (i.e. created the images digitally, rather than by hand). Again, what does it matter how the work was produced?
Sean Greenberg
April 24, 2011
(changed April 24, 2011)
Permalink
You raise an interesting nest of issues here, regarding the use of technology to assist in the production of art. The starting point for the question is the judgment that (recordings of) songs that employ technology to correct the pitch in a singer's voice are of lesser quality than those tha... Read more
Is the supposition that the future resembles the past falsifiable ?
Jasper Reid
April 23, 2011
(changed April 23, 2011)
Permalink
I read the question rather differently: can any amount of past and present evidence falsify a claim about the future, insofar as it still remains the future? Of course, past and present evidence can give us ample reason to doubt certain claims that might be made about the future: but could it eve... Read more
Many people find the idea of letting a species such as the wolf go extinct to be disconcerting. Many environmental policies are put in place to protect endangered species. Why should it really matter though whether a species goes extinct or not if in the end humans are not harmed? What is the underlying moral reasoning?
Sean Greenberg
April 23, 2011
(changed April 23, 2011)
Permalink
While Oliver Leaman's aesthetic justification of efforts to preserve endangered species is certainly one consideration that might be advanced in support of such efforts--as well as efforts to preserve plants and other living organisms, such as coral reefs and rainforests (conceiving of the for... Read more
Is the supposition that the future resembles the past falsifiable ?
Jasper Reid
April 23, 2011
(changed April 23, 2011)
Permalink
I read the question rather differently: can any amount of past and present evidence falsify a claim about the future, insofar as it still remains the future? Of course, past and present evidence can give us ample reason to doubt certain claims that might be made about the future: but could it eve... Read more
Goldbach's conjecture states that every even integer greater than two can be expressed as a sum of two primes. There is no formal proof of this conjecture. However, every even integer greater than two has been shown to be a sum of two primes once we started looking. Is this acceptable justification for believing Goldbach's conjecture? Can we determine mathematical theorems based on observational evidence?
Thomas Pogge
April 23, 2011
(changed April 23, 2011)
Permalink
Acceptable to whom? I don't think the evidence you provide would or should convince mathematicians. They justify their beliefs about conjectures like this by appeal to proofs or counter-examples. So long as neither is forthcoming, they will rightly suspend belief.
But for the rest of us, perhaps... Read more
Sometimes, we force people to conform to the law, regardless of what they might want. Other times, we reform the law in order to more properly reflect what our citizens want as a society, how they live their lives and how. How do we decide when people should conform to the law, and when the law should conform to society?
Charles Taliaferro
April 23, 2011
(changed April 23, 2011)
Permalink
Philosophers sometimes use the terms "perfect duty" to refer to duties that persons have which they can be compelled to obey, as distinct from imperfect duties which cannot compel obedience (these duties might range from a duty to be nice / not rude to acts of amazing courage which we rega... Read more
My experience with philosophy (including reading this site) has given me the impression that every utterance (or at least nearly every utterance) can be interpreted in such a way that gives it plausibility. This holds for ethically trivial utterances like "I don't believe that 2+2=4", which I can defend with an explanation like "well, 2+2=4 is not an absolute truth because a) there is skepticism in the spirit of (perhaps and among others) Descartes and b) no base was clarified in which this equation takes place" as well as ethically significant utterances like "I did not have sex with that woman" which I can defend with an explanation borrowing ideas I saw in some responses to the question about whether cybersex was sex, for instance, "Well, we used a condom which prevented literal contact which I believe is a necessary condition for something to count as sex". Now my questions are: a) is there some interpretation of every utterance such that it is plausible and b) if so, can I, in responding to questions, avoid "lying" by choosing my answer merely on the standard of what will further my own interests, knowing that there is some interpretation of my response (without perhaps knowing at the moment what precisely that interpretation is - that part is important!) that will make it seem plausible/true? Relatedly, IF any utterance can be defended plausibly as true or not, can I comfortably (in a moral sense) dispense with "truth" as a standard in choosing a response? Thanks
Charles Taliaferro
April 23, 2011
(changed April 23, 2011)
Permalink
Oh dear, oh dear, I hope not! You are right that many statements can be interpreted in ways that would make them plausable, but communication rests on agreed upon meanings and nuances. So, it became apparent during the Clinton years that his claim not to have had sex with Monica was outr... Read more
In a right angled isosceles triangle with equal sides of 1 unit and 1 unit, the third side will be sqroot(2) according to Pythagoras theorem. But sqroot(2)= 1.414213562373095... It is never ending. So theoretically we cannot determine its exact length. But physically it should have a definite length! The side is touching the other two sides of the triangle, so how can the length be theoretically indeterminate but physically determinate ? Does this mean the human understanding is limited and we cannot fully understand the mind of god ? Can you resolve this dilemma ?
Thomas Pogge
April 22, 2011
(changed April 22, 2011)
Permalink
Suppose someone had made the analogous argument about dividing a line of 1 unit into three equal parts. She tells us that "the length of each of these parts is 1/3 which is 0.333333333333 .... It is never ending. So theoretically we cannot determine the exact length of these parts."
I think this... Read more
I own a for-profit that provides a service. Unfortunately, due to financial constraints, I cannot provide this service charitably. Would it be unethical to create a 501c3 (non-profit foundation) arm to provide my service to underprivileged folks and hire my for-profit arm to conduct the event? Please note that, objectively, my for-profit arm is truly the most capable provider of this service in the area; also, the purpose of many foundations is precisely to hire vendors, not to direct events themselves. Thanks for your insights.
Thomas Pogge
April 22, 2011
(changed April 22, 2011)
Permalink
The answer depends, I would think, on how much money your for-profit company would charge for the service. I don't know the details of your operation, of course, but suppose you have a few employees performing the service and suppose you break even if you charge your customers $17 per hour of an... Read more
Dear AskPhilosophers, I am struggling to understand a point about Verificationism, which as I understand it is a doctrine that says that a statement is only meaningful if it can (in principle) be proved true or false. One interesting aspect of this doctrine is that is suggests that the sentence "The Earth is very old" is meaningless, as it is impossible to verify whether the Earth really is very old or whether we and it popped into existence a few seconds ago with all our beliefs about its age 'pre-coded' in our heads and various clues as to its age (fossils, radiometric dating etc) planted there to trick us if we choose to investigate in the future. But doesn't this mean ANY statement is meaningless under a verificationist account, since it is impossible to distinguish between "P" and "I, and anyone I choose to consult on this topic, are being systematically deceived into believing P"? Can a verificationist give an account of a sentence that she would find meaningful? Thanks very much
Thomas Pogge
April 22, 2011
(changed April 22, 2011)
Permalink
Your class of problematic cases is problematic for verificationism only on the assumption that the distinct sentences you pair with each other differ in meaning (refer to distinct propositions). But this is what a verificationist might well want to deny. She might say that, if two sentences coin... Read more