Recent Responses
Why is philosophy not taught in high school? I have heard some arguments against it, but they all seem pretty poor such as: "parents would not like their children questioning their views". It seems like philosophy has a lot to give in a high school setting, at the very least classes like Critical Thinking would give students tools for assessing arguments. I could understand if most people went on to college, but many don't and it seems like some of the skills which philosophy bestows could greatly benefit our society. I really don't see why professional philosophy has not ventured down this route. I would be very thankful for any insight on this topic. Thanks, William P.
Gordon Marino
March 20, 2011
(changed March 20, 2011)
Permalink
As others have noted, some schools do offer classes in philosophy. And with the current budget cuts going on, philosophy is not the only subject that is being ignored. Philosophically speaking we should also come to grips with the arguments of the likes of Aristotle and Plato who contended that... Read more
It is said that good art communicates things. Music, though, doesn't appear to communicate anything beyond vague aesthetic-emotional sensations (if we ignore experimental music that communicates about itself by, for example, playing Beethoven's 9th using only objects taken from a lower-class family home). Yet people also say of music that it is a "universal language". I'm not a musical expert, though, so I'm not clear on all this. Does music communicate anything beyond sensations/emotions? What can it communicate? How does that communication take place?
Gordon Marino
March 20, 2011
(changed March 20, 2011)
Permalink
I see no reason to think of communication as consisting solely of the transfer of information and concepts. Communicating emotions is by no means trivial. Philosophers such as Kierkegaard would also contend that emotions contain cognitive content as well.
Log in to post c... Read more
Following the recent tragic events in Japan there has been a "wave" of jokes and puns on the internet about the earthquake and tsunami. Is it morally acceptable to joke about something so serious and tragic? Should ethical people be outraged at photoshopped pictures showing Godzilla as the true source of the tsunami or at bad puns about waves?
Gordon Marino
March 20, 2011
(changed March 20, 2011)
Permalink
I don't think it is morally acceptable to joke about tragedies. While I know that it is part of the orthodoxy amongst comics to try and be edgy, perhaps even to try and shock, cracking jokes about thousands of people being killed and thousands upon thousands more losing their homes certainly e... Read more
Is there any number larger than all other numbers? George Cantor proved that that even infinite quantities may be smaller than other infinities. Still, might there be some infinite number that is greater than all other infinite numbers?
Richard Heck
March 20, 2011
(changed March 20, 2011)
Permalink
What Prof Pogge has said represents one perspective on this issue, but it involves assumptions that can be rejected. The central issue is whether you are prepared to speak of "how many sets there are". If so, then let Fred be how many sets there are, that is, the number of things that are sets.... Read more
I've encountered people who think that the complex grammar of German or French, or the complicated writing system of Chinese or Japanese, make speakers of those languages more intelligent, on average, than speakers of "simplistic" English. Do such claims make any sense?
Richard Heck
March 20, 2011
(changed March 20, 2011)
Permalink
Well said. And, as an empirical matter, there is no evidence whatsoever that it is any more difficult for children to learn Chinese or German than it is for them to learn English or Spanish.
Log in to post comments
I have a question that was prompted by a recent discussion with a female friend. We both agreed that a certain kind of voyeurism is obviously wrong. For example, we both thought that it would be wrong for a man to climb a tree to watch a woman disrobe through a window. The disagreement, however, emerged when we discussed a second case. Suppose a man is sitting on a bench minding his own business when he notices a girl sit down across from him wearing a short skirt. She doesn’t realize it, but he can see up her skirt--and she isn’t wearing any underwear. Now, let’s suppose that this girl is no exhibitionist and would be extremely embarrassed if she found out this man could see up her skirt. Indeed, let’s say she would be just as embarrassed as the woman in the first case would be if she found out about the tree-climber. Moreover, let’s suppose this man gets the same thrill out of this experience as the tree-climber. Is the man on the bench morally obligated to look away, or is it permissible for him to secretly stare? My friend thought that the latter man wasn’t guilty of any wrongdoing. He just happened to find himself in that sort of situation, whereas the former man went looking for it. This explanation did not seem quite right to me, however. I can think of other cases where it seems this isn’t a relevant factor at all. Suppose, for example, that the first man didn’t climb a tree. Instead, imagine that he was hiking through a forest when he came upon a cottage unexpectedly. There he notices an open window and sees, once again, a girl disrobing. Now here it is clear that he didn’t go looking for this sort of thing, but it still seems like it would be wrong for him to stick around and watch her secretly. My friend also suggested that some of the blame should have been focused on the girl wearing the skirt; after all, she chose to wear a short skirt without underwear. This too, however, doesn’t strike me as morally relevant. Indeed, we could say the same thing about the girl in the cottage. She shouldn’t have left her window open, but this surely wouldn’t absolve the man of his moral responsibility if he chose to stick around and secretly watch her. So who is right here? Or are we both wrong? Any sort of sophisticated philosophical analysis would be much appreciated. Thanks a lot.
Thomas Pogge
March 20, 2011
(changed March 20, 2011)
Permalink
Your well-articulated question brings out something interesting about how we moderns think about morality. When we consider whether a certain piece of conduct is morally acceptable or not, we tend to examine what complaints other people might plausibly raise against this conduct and how the agen... Read more
I have a question that was prompted by a recent discussion with a female friend. We both agreed that a certain kind of voyeurism is obviously wrong. For example, we both thought that it would be wrong for a man to climb a tree to watch a woman disrobe through a window. The disagreement, however, emerged when we discussed a second case. Suppose a man is sitting on a bench minding his own business when he notices a girl sit down across from him wearing a short skirt. She doesn’t realize it, but he can see up her skirt--and she isn’t wearing any underwear. Now, let’s suppose that this girl is no exhibitionist and would be extremely embarrassed if she found out this man could see up her skirt. Indeed, let’s say she would be just as embarrassed as the woman in the first case would be if she found out about the tree-climber. Moreover, let’s suppose this man gets the same thrill out of this experience as the tree-climber. Is the man on the bench morally obligated to look away, or is it permissible for him to secretly stare? My friend thought that the latter man wasn’t guilty of any wrongdoing. He just happened to find himself in that sort of situation, whereas the former man went looking for it. This explanation did not seem quite right to me, however. I can think of other cases where it seems this isn’t a relevant factor at all. Suppose, for example, that the first man didn’t climb a tree. Instead, imagine that he was hiking through a forest when he came upon a cottage unexpectedly. There he notices an open window and sees, once again, a girl disrobing. Now here it is clear that he didn’t go looking for this sort of thing, but it still seems like it would be wrong for him to stick around and watch her secretly. My friend also suggested that some of the blame should have been focused on the girl wearing the skirt; after all, she chose to wear a short skirt without underwear. This too, however, doesn’t strike me as morally relevant. Indeed, we could say the same thing about the girl in the cottage. She shouldn’t have left her window open, but this surely wouldn’t absolve the man of his moral responsibility if he chose to stick around and secretly watch her. So who is right here? Or are we both wrong? Any sort of sophisticated philosophical analysis would be much appreciated. Thanks a lot.
Thomas Pogge
March 20, 2011
(changed March 20, 2011)
Permalink
Your well-articulated question brings out something interesting about how we moderns think about morality. When we consider whether a certain piece of conduct is morally acceptable or not, we tend to examine what complaints other people might plausibly raise against this conduct and how the agen... Read more
Do attorneys who successfully enable guilty clients to evade conviction (or who manage to convict innocent defendants) have any reason to feel that they are acting immorally? Or are they beyond reproach so long as they themselves do nothing illegal or procedurally inappropriate in the course of their work?
Thomas Pogge
March 19, 2011
(changed March 19, 2011)
Permalink
I read your queston as envisaging that the attorneys in question not merely contribute to a miscarriage of justice but do so knowingly -- or at least have strong reason to believe that the outcome they are achieving is the wrong outcome.
I also read you as stipulating that the cases you have in... Read more
Is there any number larger than all other numbers? George Cantor proved that that even infinite quantities may be smaller than other infinities. Still, might there be some infinite number that is greater than all other infinite numbers?
Richard Heck
March 20, 2011
(changed March 20, 2011)
Permalink
What Prof Pogge has said represents one perspective on this issue, but it involves assumptions that can be rejected. The central issue is whether you are prepared to speak of "how many sets there are". If so, then let Fred be how many sets there are, that is, the number of things that are sets.... Read more
Is there a moral obligation upon pedophiles to voluntarily opt for castration?
Thomas Pogge
March 19, 2011
(changed March 19, 2011)
Permalink
There is a more general moral duty to do all one can reasonably do to ensure that one will not harm children. This duty might trigger the moral obligation you contemplate in special circumstances. But I would think that most persons disposed toward pedophilia will have other options that would r... Read more