Recent Responses
Is Rawls's theory of social justice reducible to rule utilitarianism? Rawls says we should adhere to rules that rational, selfish people would create if they were behind a veil of ignorance. Such people would create rules that maximize will maximize their expected utility once they are born. This means they will create rules that will maximize the total amount utility in the world, since you can expect to enjoy more utility on average in world that has more total utility. Now, rule utilitarianism says we should adhere to rules that when followed, produce the most utility. In other words, rule utilitarianism demands accordance to the exact same rules that people behind the veil of ignorance would agree to. So is Rawls effectively a rule utilitarian?
Thomas Pogge
February 12, 2011
(changed February 12, 2011)
Permalink
People have adduced something like the original position in support of rule utilitarianism. But Rawls believes that this is not the rational agreement to make behind the veil of ignorance. To see why, consider that an agreement to justify the society's institutional arrangements by referen... Read more
It happens repeatedly to me that when I read a poem, I may come across a feeling that the poem has actually reflected some thoughts of mine that had been floating in my mind but hadn't actually been able to express it in terms of words. Does this phenomenon pave any grounds for the argument that we may not actually need words in order to think? Would be grateful for an answer. Thanks. óAli
Charles Taliaferro
February 11, 2011
(changed February 11, 2011)
Permalink
Great question. Some philospohers have been quite firm that thought cannot exist without language, but this has always struck me as quite implausable. One problem is that it is hard to know how one might even begin to learn a language unless you had thoughts. But the case you rais... Read more
How do you know if you are reasonable? I'm arguing with my boss when she says something stupid. I know in my gut it's stupid. But I also know that my emotions are elevated and that she might be right--maybe what I think is stupid is really just evidence that I haven't grasped her perspective. So I try opening my ears to figure out what she meant. I figure out her perspective, and suddenly she seems to be making perfect sense, and everything I'd said before was stupid. Fast forward an hour. The argument is over, and I'm trying to work on a project. But something is bugging me and I can't figure out what it is. Suddenly I realize I never made my argument clear to my boss. I adopted her perspective, figured out where she was coming from, and abandoned my perspective. But now I'm realizing that for one reason or another, I was right all along. Her perspective was more narrowly focused than mine. Mine was better the whole time. And dagnabbit, she walked away having won the argument despite it being stupid. But then for a moment I'm in her brain again, and it all makes sense again. I just needed to get back to her perspective. At what point do we give up on this game? I just want to be a reasonable guy who sees things as broadly as possible. I want to avoid those "Oh god, I was wrong the whole time" moments that are so embarrassing. Can we approach something like a definitive perspective, or are our brains just too stupid for that? Is the ground that we cover in broadening our perspective going to be insignificant when compared to the amount of reality that we'll never be able to perceive? If the boss really is narrow-minded and full of transparent rationalizations, does that impact the responsibility of a reasonable person to see the argument through her eyes? Or does the reasonable person tune her out, accepting the loss of some truth that the stupid boss could offer from her narrow perspective? Does the reasonable person have less of an obligation to see things from other perspectives if it is clear that others aren't putting in the same effort?
Charles Taliaferro
February 11, 2011
(changed February 11, 2011)
Permalink
Great set of questions. In any community (whether on the job or in a family) it can feel quite unfair if one party is having to do all the work or at least more work to understand the other person's point of view (using more empathy, imagination, listening more). Ideally, one expec... Read more
You can make an argument that a particular route to Yellowstone is the best one to take; and you can make an argument that a man should give up his lover and decide to remain with his wife. But doesn't that fact that in the second case there is no map, that in the end the man himself must decide, completely change the kind of argument being made and what it can do? A philosopher couldn't give that man the correct answer, could she, by improving the argument?
Charles Taliaferro
February 11, 2011
(changed February 11, 2011)
Permalink
I am a little confused by the last question --the fault is mine, I am sure, but let me have a go at what you have written. Some philosophers have been and are skeptical about the objective status of ethics. Probably a philosopher like J.L. Mackie who wrote a book called Ethics: Inv... Read more
Is it impossible that there be two recursive sets T and T* of axioms (in the same language) such that their closures under the same recursive set of recursive rules is identical and yet there is no recursive proof of this fact? It seems impossible but a simple proof of this fact would help elucidate matters!
Daniel J. Velleman
February 14, 2011
(changed February 14, 2011)
Permalink
Yes, I agree, under the alternative interpretation I proposed the word "recursive" in "recursive proof" is doing no work. So my interpretation is not entirely satisfactory either. I don't know which interpretation was meant, but both seem to be interesting questions.As for the gene... Read more
Is it ethical to live a lifestyle of luxury when that lifestyle relies on exploitation and unjust inequalities?
Gordon Marino
February 11, 2011
(changed February 11, 2011)
Permalink
I suppose you could go the "it depends on what you mean by ethical route", but I would prefer a simple - of course not. And yet over the course of American history the robber barons and hall of fame exploiters inevitably become major philanthropists. They destroy lives to build their for... Read more
I am very interested in the concept of the Philosophical Zombie, though after doing some research, I see that it is an argument against Physicalism. This I don't understand. I can't seem to wrap my head around why this is so. Would someone be able to explain this better and more clearly than what I read on Wikipedia? Best, Aron G.
Jonathan Westphal
February 11, 2011
(changed February 11, 2011)
Permalink
Try this. Suppose everything that is explained is explained by facts about the physical world - that's physicalism. If zombies were possible and existed, we would be physically indistinguishable from them. But they would have no consciousness. So whatever explains our consciousness ca... Read more
There are those who believe that morality consists of doing what you like as long as no one gets hurt, and no one's rights are infringed upon. However where does that central idea that hurting others or infringing on others' rights is wrong come from? Isn't that also a moral judgment? What morality is it based on? Thanks.
Allen Stairs
February 10, 2011
(changed February 10, 2011)
Permalink
You're quire right: it's a moral judgment. It's arguable that there's no logical bridge that can take us from non-moral judgments to moral judgments; this is a way of putting the old point that you can't derive an "ought" from an "is." But I'd like to pause a bit on your last question: wh... Read more
Is it impossible that there be two recursive sets T and T* of axioms (in the same language) such that their closures under the same recursive set of recursive rules is identical and yet there is no recursive proof of this fact? It seems impossible but a simple proof of this fact would help elucidate matters!
Daniel J. Velleman
February 14, 2011
(changed February 14, 2011)
Permalink
Yes, I agree, under the alternative interpretation I proposed the word "recursive" in "recursive proof" is doing no work. So my interpretation is not entirely satisfactory either. I don't know which interpretation was meant, but both seem to be interesting questions.As for the gene... Read more
Is it ethical to live a lifestyle of luxury when that lifestyle relies on exploitation and unjust inequalities?
Gordon Marino
February 11, 2011
(changed February 11, 2011)
Permalink
I suppose you could go the "it depends on what you mean by ethical route", but I would prefer a simple - of course not. And yet over the course of American history the robber barons and hall of fame exploiters inevitably become major philanthropists. They destroy lives to build their for... Read more