Recent Responses
Why is it that, in so many languages, the same word (in English, "wrong") can mean both "false" (e.g., in "that answer is wrong") and "improper" (e.g., in "it is wrong to steal")? Is there some important thing common to falsity and immorality? And is "wrong" the word for it?
Miriam Solomon
January 6, 2011
(changed January 6, 2011)
Permalink
You make an insightful observation. Perhaps one reason is that there is a close coincidence between lying (which is often although perhaps not always morally wrong) and telling falsehoods. Perhaps another is that we sometimes regard the search for the truth (in science or other fields) as... Read more
There are some moral issues where opponents or supporters use pragmatic arguments to support their moral standpoint. For example, people might say promiscuity is immoral because of the risk of diseases; or that abortion is morally permissible because of the inconvenience of unwanted children, or that it is immoral because of the risk of damage to the body. My question is this: to what extent are pragmatic arguments relevant in discussions of morality? That promiscuity brings with it the risk of disease is an extrinsic problem, not an intrinsic one - in a world without STDs, it would no longer be relevant. The problem of unwanted children being an economic burden is also only relevant as long as it really is an economic burden - a rich woman with an unwanted child could easily hire a nanny and build some extra rooms onto her house, and the problem disappears. In both cases, the problem that disappears under the right circumstances can't really be a moral problem, can it?
Allen Stairs
January 6, 2011
(changed January 6, 2011)
Permalink
Many philosophers (and many non-philosophers, for that matter) think that whether something is right of wrong is at least partly a matter of consequences. If smoking were good for people, it might be a good thing to encourage them to do it. Since smoking is unhealthy, it's wrong to encourage i... Read more
Without considering the arguments that there was ever a Jewish Holocaust can I be certain that such a thing happened just because I've read about it in my history books in school?
Andrew Pessin
January 6, 2011
(changed January 6, 2011)
Permalink
Why mention the Holocaust example specifically? Any worries about the "certainty" of historical knowledge would equally apply to every single piece of historical knowledge. Of course, what makes the Holocaust example stand out is that it does get challenged -- by people who have typically d... Read more
What is supernatural? All right, I know this might sound really broad but I think I can specify and clarify it a little better if I explain what I mean. According to Wikipedia supernatural is anything above or beyond what one holds to be natural or exists outside natural law and the observable universe. If a supernatural being/thing exists, there could be only two scenarios; one would be a supernatural being/thing which can interact with everyday material that we can sense (ie. matter, photons, gravity weak force, strong force, electromagnitism essentially anything that exists) and in that case it would have to have its own mechanisms wich we can observe test and learn (there is an assumption here that everything that interacts with us has a 'mechanism' or a set of rules by which it behaves), which would mean it is 'scientific' and not supernatural. The other scenario is if it couldn't interact with our physical world, in which case it would be outside the natural law of the observable universe, but even then the question remains of how does it work. So I guess my real question, which i think is the same as above, is "can something exist without having a mechanism?" and if it does, do we care, or can we just say it doesn't exists because as far as we are concerned it doesn't "matter"? PS: there is one other thing I have to clarify, the mechanism isn't necessarily referring to the "real" world. For example, if we are living in the computer and if a chair came into existed suddenly in my room it still would have to have a mechanism such as the code or a program which was executed by the computer in which we live, and thus the whole process had a 'mechanism'.
Andrew Pessin
January 6, 2011
(changed January 6, 2011)
Permalink
wow, great and deep question(s). I don't have time for an appropriately thoughtful reply right now, but I would mention C. S. Lewis's book on "miracles" at least to raise a question (from a religious perspective) about the assumptions in the first part of your message. Lewis thinks the laws... Read more
Has technology gone too far. With stem-cell research, artificial intelligence, bionics, etc. has technology made or is it making humans lethargic? Will we someday not know how to do things for ourselves? With all the advancements in extending age, and overpopulation ever present, will this be the end? Do any of the past philosophers like Kant, Plato Aristotle mention technology or its outcome?
Andrew Pessin
January 6, 2011
(changed January 6, 2011)
Permalink
Interesting question! We might distinguish between the 'general public' and the 'experts.' Don't you think there will always be 'experts' driving the technological process? Always innovating, always working, always moving 'forward' (or at least moving)? Such folks will always "know how to... Read more
Should we enjoy high quality forms of art that depict an immoral situation? And should we even consider morality when evaluating art? I find myself constantly bringing this issue up whenever I watch a movie for example. Let's say there is a very well done movie that tells how great Suharto is? It's obviously a lie, what effect can this fact have on the value of the movie, as a piece of art.
Douglas Burnham
January 6, 2011
(changed January 6, 2011)
Permalink
I just answered a similar question, and much of what I say thereis relevant here too:
http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/3749
However, what is new in your question is the idea of art (theother question concerned fiction and, given the context, Iinterpreted that as meaning popular ficti... Read more
Is it immoral to produce a work of fiction where the main antagonist is also the only representative of a disadvantaged minority? For example, a film where the psychopathic killer is also the only gay man, or where the terrorist is the only black man. Does producing such a work contribute to discrimination? What are the responsibilities of the authors/artists?
Douglas Burnham
January 6, 2011
(changed January 6, 2011)
Permalink
Thank you for your questions. Onecan imagine a strong 'no' answer to your first question, which isfounded upon the following argument. It stresses the notion offiction. If the novel or film is called fictional, that means itdeviates from, and is known to deviate from, an accuraterepresentat... Read more
I have recently become very interested in philosophy and have recently decided to work through Plato's Republic. However, I am already a little confused with Book I. Ideally; I should like to understand Book I before I move on. What confuses me is how Socrates presents his arguments, or rather how he undermines the arguments of others. It almost seems that all of what Socrates says is trickery. I think a good example of what I'm saying is the "Analogy of the Arts". Socrates uses the analogy to convince Polemarchus that "justice is the art which gives good to friends and evil to enemies". So far, this analogy seems to make sense and I would agree with Socrates. However, Socrates goes on to use the analogy to make it appear that Justice is of no use in times of peace. Really? At this point I believe that the analogy has been taken too far and has been taken in such literal understanding that it has been stretched beyond context. Another problem I am having is how specific Socrates is getting in comparison to the rest of the Republic. For example, Socrates asks if people are friends if they seem honest or are really honest but do not seem so. Its fine that Socrates is interested about Justice as it relates to friendship as it relates to honesty, but he makes no mention of any other characteristics of friendship in the Republic. Since he is so specific but leaves out many other specifics, it makes it seem that his argument for Justice would only hold under these specific investigations and would be useless against someone who has never read the Republic. I'm unsure of how to ask a clear cut questions that covers everything I laid out above. The best question I can muster is: Is there a trick or philosophy rudiment I am missing in fully understanding Socrates use of logic?
Sean Greenberg
January 7, 2011
(changed January 7, 2011)
Permalink
Although one way to work one's way into philosophy is to begin with philosophical problems, such as those considered in the books mentioned by Allen, another way--which I myself find more congenial, which, for what it's worth, is the way I myself came into philosophy--is to study its history... Read more
What do you philosophers think of when non-philosophers step into your turf? Are "pop-philosophers" (for lack of a better term, I don't see the "man on the street" going hooplah over what Putnam or Kripke says) worth reading or do they have any good philosophical value at all? What do you philosophers think of Dawkins commenting on God which I believe is your turf? What do you philosophers think of when Stephen Hawking says that philosophy is dead?
Gordon Marino
January 14, 2011
(changed January 14, 2011)
Permalink
I also don't think of philosophy as turf - nor do I think that teaching philosophy or studying philosophy necessarily makes you a lover and possessor of wisdom. I also find it irksome when some in the field act as though philosophy profs are the ones who have access to the so-called deeper... Read more
According to libertarians, a fair price is simply whatever a buyer and a seller can agree on. Critics of libertarianism say this enables exploitation, because a person in desperate circumstances might have to agree to a low price if she is to sell anything at all (ie. sweatshop workers). If we reject the libertarian definition of a fair price, what other metric can we use to determine whether a price is fair?
Thomas Pogge
January 5, 2011
(changed January 5, 2011)
Permalink
In first approximation, the fair price is the one that would emerge in a well-structured open market if the existing distribution of socio-economic positions were replaced by the one that would exist in the absence of historical wrongs under just social institutions (leaving all else -- and es... Read more