Recent Responses
This might be a silly question, but can you argue against opinions? Someone once wrote to me "u can't argue with opinion". Is that true? I would think arguing against a person's opinion happens regularly-- philosophers certainly do it. And I thought that was the plain answer, but I thought about it more and well, question it. It is possible that this someone is already accepting the fact, or assuming that "opinion" is neither true nor false. For example, "It is my opinion that X is beauty, and Y is beauty for you," knowing that there is a difference of opinion, of which both can claim truth, you therefore can't argue with my opinion. This might be a case of relativism, "what's true for me, may not be true for you, etc". Anyways, I just want some clarity with the claim that "u can't argue with opinion."
William Rapaport
January 30, 2011
(changed January 30, 2011)
Permalink
I agree with Sean's response, but I'd like to add a few, um, opinions of my own.
Some students believe that only "authorities" (e.g., teachers) know the "correct" answers to all questions. And they believe this until these students meet "authorities" who disagree. Such disagreements... Read more
Why is the notion of a child having sex with an adult considered so profoundly offensive? It is widely believed that sex with a child is psychologically harmful to the child. However, why should that be? Is it the act itself that is psychologically harmful to the child or the belief that they (the child) have participated in something psychologically harmful which psychologically harmful to the child? Some people have claimed that when a child participates in a sexual act that they lose their "innocence." Yet I do not perceive any direct connection between innocence and sexuality. It is possible to express ones sexuality in ways that are disrespectful and even sadistic, for instance a person might feel deeply insulted if they allowed a person to have access to intimate parts of their body only to discover that that person had no respect for them as a person. The complexities and dangers of sexuality are one reason that it seems to be no less prudent to restrict the sexual activity of children than it would be to restrict a child from making complicated and risky business transactions. (Freud made a similar analogy when he compared sexuality to the "marketplace".) Yet I do not see any direct connection between the insult of objectification and the idea of a child having sex with an adult. Perhaps it can be argued that a harm of objectification occurs because the child can not consent. However this argument seems to beg the question of whether there is anything inherently objectionable about the act of a child having sex with an adult. Studies of pedophiles have shown that pedophiles do not at least consciously have a desire to harm children. Such studies seem to go against the idea that pedophiles are objectifying children although objectification might not be what people centrally find offensive about sexual activity between adults and children. Sexual activity between adults and children is widely perceived as aesthetically displeasing. In fact I find it aesthetically displeasing to such a sufficient degree that I believe that is a good reason to legally restrict activity between children and adults since the child may not be aware until later in their life that such activity is aesthetically displeasing. If a person deliberately made a child engage in a very aesthetically displeasing activity such as making them eat a plate full of excrement I think it would be correct to regard such an activity as heinous. However that does not seem to be what is going on with pedophiles because they do not regard their activity as something aesthetically displeasing. Sexuality is highly complex and what one person finds aesthetically displeasing another might not find aesthetically displeasing. (homosexuality for example) Do people have intense animosity toward pedophiles simply because they do not think of the matter in an enlightened and philosophical manner? Might it be possible to reduce pedophiliac behavior while being respectful and nonjudgmental toward people who are pedophiles?
Peter S. Fosl
January 29, 2011
(changed January 29, 2011)
Permalink
Not only is it possible that pedophilia is in general not judged philosophically; as it is with virtually everything it is a near certainty. That, however, doesn't make the judgment incorrect. I can't speak to the reasons that pedophilia is thought to be harmful psychologically, but philoso... Read more
I am often conflicted with my feelings and empathy for people who smoke. On the one hand I empathize with individuals who are addicted to smoking despite it's known deleterious effects - you can say, I for one also make harmful decisions that affect my health such as my daily coffee fix, or my lacklustre efforts to exercise. And I'm sure many are guilty of such choices that may cause harm to themselves. On the other hand, I innately support governmental actions and policies to eliminate smoking, which incidentally means I support the actions to remove an individual's freedom or choice to smoke. So I succinctly ask: is this hypocrisy excusable? Secondly, as a society, we create laws which discriminate against smokers, but essentially by taking away their freedom of choice to smoke, we are saving their lives, hence is this form of discrimination justifiable?
Charles Taliaferro
January 28, 2011
(changed January 28, 2011)
Permalink
Great question(s)! In reply, I suggest backing up a little. You describe your position as hypocritical and ask whether it might be excusable. If smoking is directly on a par (no better or worse) with your examples of abusing coffee and not exercising (or not doing so sufficiently),... Read more
I just started an introduction to philosophy course and my "teacher" told the whole class, as well as me, that Ayn Rand is not a philosopher and that just because -ism on the end of a word doesn't make it a philosophy. He also proceeded to say that if anyone over the age of 21 is reading Ayn Rand that "their is something wrong with that person." Is this man correct? I mean, I believe that Ayn Rand is a philosopher and that objectivism is a philosophy, am I wrong?
Charles Taliaferro
January 28, 2011
(changed January 28, 2011)
Permalink
It sounds as though you really touched a raw nerve given your professor's (or "teacher's") reaction! It might not be a great idea to write your first paper for him or her defending Rand, but, on the other hand, if your professor is truly philosophical in the best sense (open to counte... Read more
Bertrand Russell says, in his "In Praise of Idleness", that questions of ends (as opposed to questions of means) are not amenable to rational arguments. This seems intuitive enough, yet wouldn't accepting it would spell doom for any hope of normative objectivity?
Charles Taliaferro
January 28, 2011
(changed January 28, 2011)
Permalink
Good question! There may be several alternatives to consider. First, there may be objective normative truths (e.g. to torture the innocent is unjust) even if we are unable to arrive at what Russell would clasify as a "rational argument" on behalf of such truths. Secondly, we may hav... Read more
Is one of the key features of "good art" that its production was deliberate? For example, the degree to which an artist is deliberate with every stroke correlates to the amount of "responsibility" he has over every brush stroke and thus the more that he deserves any praise.
Douglas Burnham
January 28, 2011
(changed January 28, 2011)
Permalink
It certainly seems to be essential to most accounts of art that some human agency is involved, generally in the form of a deliberate decision to do or make something. The artist then has to take responsibility for whatever is produced. However, should we think of this as quantitative, suc... Read more
What does it mean to accuse a person of "false consciousness"? I've seen the term used by some philosophers, but I've never seen it explained.
Douglas Burnham
January 28, 2011
(changed January 28, 2011)
Permalink
This is technical term within Marxist thought. 'Falseconsciousness' is when an individual or especially a class is unableto properly recognise the economic and political situation. Indeed,the individual or class may even put forward a view concerning theirsituation and justify that view,... Read more
Are dreams experiences that occur during sleep? Or are they made-up memories that only occur upon waking? How could one tell either way?
Eddy Nahmias
January 27, 2011
(changed January 27, 2011)
Permalink
Good question, one that has been debated by philosophers (perhaps even psychologists?), and one that is answered nicely in Owen Flanagan's Dreaming Souls. You can get a glimpse of the problem on p. 19 found here but he gives the full answer later in the book (e.g., pp. 174-5). Basically, t... Read more
How can it possibly be the case that "injustice everywhere is a threat to justice anywhere"? It really plausible to suggest that Turkmenistan's oppression of the Bahá'ís has a substantial impact on the rights of Canadian Jews?
Eddy Nahmias
January 27, 2011
(changed January 27, 2011)
Permalink
Perhaps Martin Luther King, Jr. did not mean this quotation quite as literally as you seem to be taking it. He seems to mean that we should take a more encompassing vision of what counts as justice and what our obligations are. So, it is unlikely that oppression in Turkmenistan has "a subs... Read more
Do immoral methods in science always produce false results? I've heard this kind of claim made in relation to psychological experiments in which subjects are initially lied to. It doesn't seem intuitive. Why do people say this?
Miriam Solomon
January 27, 2011
(changed January 27, 2011)
Permalink
You ask a good question that I have wondered about myself. The classic examples of immoral work in science are Nazi experiments on human physiology and the Tuskegee syphilis study. Neither were up to current methodological standards, but both were OK science for their time. In a way it... Read more