Recent Responses
is it possible to have an empirical theory of ethics?
Thomas Pogge
April 3, 2011
(changed April 3, 2011)
Permalink
Sure. There can be an empirical theory of how moral judgments and reasoning develop in children for example, as presented by Lawrence Kohlberg and his successors (including Carol Gilligan). And there can be an empirical theory of how -- in reponse to features of human psychology and of the human n... Read more
On March 19 2011, Thomas Pogge responded to a question posed on March 17 concerning (inter alia) the morality of an attorney's decision to represent a person accused of a serious crime in circumstances in which the attorney has "very strong reason to believe" that the client is guilty. The response suggests that "in view of the enormous damage done by repeat offenders who have been wrongly acquitted earlier ...... such a defense attorney should decline the case or resign from it". With all due respect to the learned philosopher, this suggestion overlooks a fundamental precept of procedural justice in all criminal trials - "an accused person is presumed innocent until proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be guilty". Only a serious misunderstanding of the role of a defense attorney can give rise to a suggestion that my attorney should resign from my case simply on the basis of her own (subjective?) belief that my acquittal in a previous trial was "wrong" and that she believes that the prosecutor's case is well-founded. Even jurors are routinely instructed not to allow their own beliefs to form the basis for deciding that an accused person is guilty - they must examine the totality of the evidence placed before the Court, and only if they are satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt that the prosecutor has proved every element of the charges beyond any reasonable doubt, may they bring in a verdict of "guilty". Surely I am entitled to be represented by a qualified attorney in defending myself against whatever charges the prosecution may decide to level against me?
Thomas Pogge
April 1, 2011
(changed April 1, 2011)
Permalink
I am in full agreement with the precept that an accused person is to be presumed innocent until proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty. But this precept is not violated when your defense attorney declines your case or resigns from it. This is so because the presumption applies to the state... Read more
In your opinion, what are the philosophers, or philosophical positions or movements, that are most wildly misrepresented outside of academic circles? Why do you suppose this misrepresentation takes place?
Sean Greenberg
March 31, 2011
(changed March 31, 2011)
Permalink
I don't know to what extent any philosophers or philosophical positions are mispresented outside of academia. However, throughout academia, both in philosophy and in other disciplines, 'Cartesian' and its cognates have become somewhat dirty words, implying a completely 'unhuman' separation of... Read more
I have heard that the only argument we have at the moment for the existence of free will rests on quantum mechanics, however I'm not entirely sure how this works. Could you please help me with an example of how quantum mechanics expresses our free will?
Peter Smith
March 31, 2011
(changed March 31, 2011)
Permalink
QM may give us reason for believing that determinism is false. (Actually, even this claim is problematic, but it at least has some plausibility. If we think the world behaves as QM says it does, and think that QM implies that some events are irredeemably chancy, then it seems to follow that that... Read more
Even if we accept Judith Jarvis Thomson's distinction between "killing" and "letting die", how can abortion be anything but horrifically unethical? Suppose I have daughter that I reluctantly take care of. I would never kill her, but I miss the disposable income and free time I had before her. Then one day I find out my daughter has rare disease and needs me to donate my kidney (or if you prefer, needs me to be tied to the machine described in violinist thought experiment). "Now's my chance!" I think. "If refuse to let her use my body, I can 'let her die' rather than 'kill' her. With my only child dead, I'll be free to live like a bachelor again. No more t-ball games for me!" Even if you grant that I have the right to let my daughter die, it still sounds like a selfish thing to do. In fact it's monstrous thing to do. Just like we can defend Fred Phelps's right to free speech while condemning the way exercises it, we can defend a woman a woman's right to bodily autonomy while condemning the way she exercises it. Yet pro-choice people are much less eager to condemn women who have abortions than they Fred Phelps. Why should a woman who has an abortion get more respect than Fred Phelps?
Peter Smith
March 31, 2011
(changed March 31, 2011)
Permalink
I agree with everything Richard Heck says, but let me add more, recycling points I've made before in responding to other questions about abortion.
Consider the following "gradualist" view: As the humanzygote/embryo/foetus slowly develops, its death slowly becomes a more serious matter.At the ver... Read more
The moral of some science fiction stories is that humanity shouldn't "play God". Why not? Is it just the issue of our own ignorance and incompetence, or is there something fundamentally wrong with trying to tamper with the natural order, even assuming we understand the consequences and know what we're doing?
Allen Stairs
March 31, 2011
(changed March 31, 2011)
Permalink
Part of the problem is to decide what counts as "tampering with the natural order." In at least some senses, we "tamper with the natural order" all the time. Modern medicine is a clear example, but you could even make the case that selective breeding of the sort that farmers and gardeners have p... Read more
Even if we accept Judith Jarvis Thomson's distinction between "killing" and "letting die", how can abortion be anything but horrifically unethical? Suppose I have daughter that I reluctantly take care of. I would never kill her, but I miss the disposable income and free time I had before her. Then one day I find out my daughter has rare disease and needs me to donate my kidney (or if you prefer, needs me to be tied to the machine described in violinist thought experiment). "Now's my chance!" I think. "If refuse to let her use my body, I can 'let her die' rather than 'kill' her. With my only child dead, I'll be free to live like a bachelor again. No more t-ball games for me!" Even if you grant that I have the right to let my daughter die, it still sounds like a selfish thing to do. In fact it's monstrous thing to do. Just like we can defend Fred Phelps's right to free speech while condemning the way exercises it, we can defend a woman a woman's right to bodily autonomy while condemning the way she exercises it. Yet pro-choice people are much less eager to condemn women who have abortions than they Fred Phelps. Why should a woman who has an abortion get more respect than Fred Phelps?
Peter Smith
March 31, 2011
(changed March 31, 2011)
Permalink
I agree with everything Richard Heck says, but let me add more, recycling points I've made before in responding to other questions about abortion.
Consider the following "gradualist" view: As the humanzygote/embryo/foetus slowly develops, its death slowly becomes a more serious matter.At the ver... Read more
What do philosophers mean when they describe one claim as being "stronger" or "weaker" than another?
Richard Heck
March 31, 2011
(changed March 31, 2011)
Permalink
When someone says that a claim P is logically stronger than a claim Q, it usually just means that P implies Q, but not conversely. Thus, an argument sufficient to establish Q need not be sufficient to establish P. So it's good if your premises are "weak". Then you don't need such strong argument... Read more
Are video games art? Many people claim that it's not, but video games seem very similar to story telling mediums such as film and literature, the only difference is that in some games, the player decides the story.
Richard Heck
March 28, 2011
(changed March 28, 2011)
Permalink
I take it the question ought to mean: Could a video game be the sort of thing to which it would be appropriate to respond as art? If that's the question, then I'd suppose the answer has to be "yes". Art imposes no restriction on its medium. Of course, this is a very different question from wheth... Read more
Can experience provide us with the data for making a decision about what is morally right or wrong?
Charles Taliaferro
March 26, 2011
(changed March 26, 2011)
Permalink
It would be hard to deny this, though some philosophers have claimed that morality may be grasped a piori or independently of experience. Perhaps simple reflection on what it is to be a person or to be rational can generated some reasonable moral claims, but it certainly appears that our... Read more