Recent Responses
Some acts become morally wrong only due to the victim's knowledge of them. (For example, in an answer on Feb. 16, Charles Taliaferro says "internet stalking" is wrong because "the people you are studying so closely would not want this, should they ever know about it.") What is the moral status of such an act if the victim doesn't find out about it? In case that sounds too obscure, here are two other examples (from real life): 1. Ogling: if a man looks at a woman and feels attracted to her (but does not say or do anything), and she finds him repulsive, she would feel that she had been wronged if she knew about his attraction, but has no way to know about it. 2. Jewish law requires a group of 10 Jews to worship (defined as people whose mothers were Jewish). I know a non-Jew (Jewish father only) who tricked a group of 9 orthodox Jews by claiming to be Jewish and praying with them. If they knew he wasn't Jewish by their standards, they would have been harmed, but they had no way to find out. In the ogling case, one commits a wrong merely by thinking, but the Judaism case is a matter of outward behavior. In all cases, it is the victims' knowledge of the crime that causes the harm. One might be tempted to say these acts are wrong because the victim might find out, but it's easy to construct situations where this couldn't happen--say, the victims are strangers whom the perpetrator will never meet again. I'm very curious what philosophers have to say about this.
Thomas Pogge
February 26, 2011
(changed February 26, 2011)
Permalink
Charles Taliaferro did not write that internet stalking is wrong only due to the victim's knowledge of it. According to you, he wrote that it's wrong due to the fact that the victim would mind if she knew. So, according to him, it can be wrong even if the victim never finds out.
This is wo... Read more
If we were able to create a computer that functions exactly like a human brain, when does this "artificial" intelligence stop being artificial? I suppose what I'm trying to say is that if this computer could truly learn, and be programmed in such a way as to develop emotions just as humans do, when does it become real? When is it not right to just plug it out and "kill" it? Many people would, I'm assuming, argue that a computer isn't living, or isn't biological. (As posed in an earlier answer, that's not particularly valid; we all weed our gardens.) It comes down to emotion as far as I'm concerned. I'm finding this question particularly difficult to phrase, and the more I type the more I think that the question is going to come across as all over the place, so I'm going to stop at that and hope for the best! If there is no response I will try again another time.
William Rapaport
February 25, 2011
(changed February 25, 2011)
Permalink
And a good place to continue (after reading Turing 1950) might be with some of the readings that I have listed on my Philosophy of Computer Science course webpages at: Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence and at Computer Ethics, especially: LaChat, Michael R. (1986), "Artificial Int... Read more
If we were able to create a computer that functions exactly like a human brain, when does this "artificial" intelligence stop being artificial? I suppose what I'm trying to say is that if this computer could truly learn, and be programmed in such a way as to develop emotions just as humans do, when does it become real? When is it not right to just plug it out and "kill" it? Many people would, I'm assuming, argue that a computer isn't living, or isn't biological. (As posed in an earlier answer, that's not particularly valid; we all weed our gardens.) It comes down to emotion as far as I'm concerned. I'm finding this question particularly difficult to phrase, and the more I type the more I think that the question is going to come across as all over the place, so I'm going to stop at that and hope for the best! If there is no response I will try again another time.
William Rapaport
February 25, 2011
(changed February 25, 2011)
Permalink
And a good place to continue (after reading Turing 1950) might be with some of the readings that I have listed on my Philosophy of Computer Science course webpages at: Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence and at Computer Ethics, especially: LaChat, Michael R. (1986), "Artificial Int... Read more
Is there such a thing as "emotional infidelity"?
Sean Greenberg
February 25, 2011
(changed February 25, 2011)
Permalink
If one means by 'emotional infidelity' feeling attracted to another person than the one to whom is committed, or to feeling enmity or having bad thoughts towards someone towards to whom one is committed in friendship, than the phenomenon seems very possible indeed. Consider the followin... Read more
Is a universe where absolutely nothing exists conceivable without contradiction?
Sean Greenberg
February 25, 2011
(changed February 25, 2011)
Permalink
It does not seem inconceivable to me: especially if one draws a distinction between a universe and the objects in it, it certainly seems conceptually possible. And a brief search on the web suggests that this conclusion is not merely the result of uninformed, armchair speculation: click... Read more
I always wondered at Socrates' idea that if you know that a certain way to live or that certain actions are evil, you couldn't do them. I know people do things, and later regret them. And that means that have some knowledge after the fact that if they had had before would have made it impossible to do what they regret. And that we can rationalize almost anything to keep ourselves from knowing exactly what we are doing. But doesn't, say, Macbeth know that what he is doing is evil, and does it anyway? Are there any good arguments for Socrates?
Sean Greenberg
February 25, 2011
(changed February 25, 2011)
Permalink
Although it does indeed seem to be the case that agents seem knowingly to do evil--one thinks of Milton's Satan, who says, "evil be now my good"--and that Socratic intellectualism, most clearly expressed, if I remember correctly, in the Protagoras--cannot be correct. But it seems to me... Read more
If humans (or perhaps sentient beings) could be defined, what exactly are we? I have never studied philosphy, but when I studied media I was taught that we were 'automatons'(which seemed a little glib...though that shouldn't matter) and I've come across a few theories such as wavelengths etc. Is there an answer? I hope this isn't too scientific.
Sean Greenberg
February 25, 2011
(changed February 25, 2011)
Permalink
I think that it depends on what one is looking for in a definition. Aristotle famously characterized human beings as rational animals. (Of course, if other rational animals were discovered, it would follow from Aristotle's definition that they, too are human beings. So perhaps Aristot... Read more
I graduated with a degree in math. I always had an interest in philosophy. I even took 5 classes beyond the requirement of my degree. After some years after graduation, I really want to be a philosopher. Since I obvious am not in good standing to apply to a PhD program, I need to get a masters degree. In order to apply to the master 's degree program, I simply don 't have the recommendation letters. What can I do to get the Rec letters for me to apply to a Master 's degree program?
Sean Greenberg
February 25, 2011
(changed February 25, 2011)
Permalink
First, you should get letters of recommendation from the professors who taught the philosophy courses that you took. If you didn't take classes with enough distinct professors to have the sufficient number of letters--which I take to be an implication of your question--then you should g... Read more
What way of communicating is better? Is it a verbal communication or text communication? Why? I believe there are no different between them. Yet all girls say that better way of communicating is verbal communication.
Charles Taliaferro
February 25, 2011
(changed February 25, 2011)
Permalink
Great question! In the dialogue Phaedrus, Socrates offers reasons why the girls (if you are right that all girls prefer verbal communication) may be right. Among other things, Socrates proposed that verbal, in-person communication is superior to writing for it is less subject to mi... Read more
Is there any value in "thinking for yourself" on subjects that have long been thought about before? Regarding whether God exists, for instance, lots of people far smarter and more knowledgeable than I have been unable to come to a consensus. If they can't figure it out, I have little hope of finding the truth myself. And if they did happen to come to consensus, it would be silly of me to try and prove them all wrong. So why should I think for myself if smarter people have already thought for me?
William Rapaport
February 24, 2011
(changed February 24, 2011)
Permalink
I agree with Saul, but I also think that it can be very useful to think through a problem for yourself before reading what others have had to say about it. That way, you know what you think about the issue, and you can use your views to help you understand or question the views of oth... Read more