Recent Responses
Some people attack faith on the basis that it is "wishful thinking". But what is actually wrong with wishful thinking?
Mitch Green
December 27, 2010
(changed December 27, 2010)
Permalink
Thank you for your nice question. We normally think of our beliefs as things that ought to be responsive to evidence, and only to evidence. So for instance, most of us would agree that it is not a proper reason for thinking that smoking is not harmful to my health, that it makes me feel b... Read more
Is my body my property? Or is it not property at all?
Jennifer Church
December 27, 2010
(changed December 27, 2010)
Permalink
If I am my body, then my body can't be my property because then there will be no distinction between owner and owned. But even if I am a different sort of thing than my body yet can't exist apart from my body, then some usual notions of property as that which I have a right to sell or... Read more
I'm not sure is this is a philosophical question or a linguistics question but what's the difference between "agree" and "strongly agree?" In my mind, if you agree with a statement or disagree with it, that's the end of it. I think agree or disagree are absolutes so to add an adverbial quantifier is not necessary. How can you 'agree more' with something after you already agree with it? Or, for example, say we both disagree about something. It's not possible for me to disagree 'more' than you. I see this kind of choice on those psych tests employers like to give to candidates. I don't think I've ever 'passed' one of those tests because of my problem with this choice. So is it just semantics? Please help. Confused in Lakeland, FL
Allen Stairs
December 27, 2010
(changed December 27, 2010)
Permalink
An interesting puzzle. Here's at least one possible explanation. There are some things I agree with, but I can fairly easily imagine changing my mind. In cases, this possibility seems much more remote.
For example: suppose my department is deciding between two job candidates, Jimenez and... Read more
Hello there, I have a question concerning Maths. If I am not especially good at Mathematics in school, should I be interested in philosophy? I believe that Mathematics is quite related to philosophy. If persons good at Maths, they have a very strong logical mind. And philosophy requires logic in thoughts. Moreover, do the universities require to pass Mathematics exam if persons want to study philosophy? By nature, I am some kind of creative person. And a creativity, I believe, is more related to breaking rules. I try to say that it is opposite from logical things. The classmates say that I am some kind of philosopher and I love philosophizing although I can't always notice it. And it is interesting thing! To sum up, what is more important considering person who wants to study in philosophy? Its creativity or logical mind?
Sean Greenberg
December 24, 2010
(changed December 24, 2010)
Permalink
It has been noted--for example, by Thomas Nagel, in the preface to his collection of reviews, Other Minds--that many professional philosophers tend to have been interested in math or theoretical physics before turning to philosophy. However, I myself don't think that there is a necessar... Read more
Rape seems to be a crime that is very difficult to deal with, legally, especially when the two parties are in some way or another involved. Assuming there is no video evidence and no medical evidence (i.e. injury), the rapist can always claim the sex was consensual, and assuming the two know one another (as is often the case), the idea that they might have sex is always possible; this makes it relatively easy for rapists to defend themselves. Rape can, furthermore, be used to horribly smear somebody's reputation, cause them to lose their job and ruin and relationship they might be in at the moment - and though it is difficult to prove, it is also very difficult to disprove, except by having a convincing alibi. If two people have consensual sex, and one party decides to claim they tried to turn down sex but were raped, there is little the other party can do to defend themselves. Assuming innocence until proven guilty could let rapists walk free, but assuming guilt until proven innocent could get innocent people sent to jail and registered for life as sex offenders. Proof is often sketchy, at best, and rape trials tend to bring out the worst in social prejudice against women, against men, against race or religion. Given these difficulties, can we really maintain normal legal procedure in cases of rape? What would the best, fairest way to deal with this problem be?
Oliver Leaman
December 24, 2010
(changed December 24, 2010)
Permalink
I don't see what is special about rape from the evidence point of view. There are many crimes which take the form of one party saying one thing, and the other something else. In the Anglo-American legal system a jury may well have the opportunity to decide on who is telling the truth, an... Read more
Do you only do a good deed (or just about anything), because you're gaining something from it yourself? I have thought this with my friend and she thinks people are naturally "good". I just think that as we are animals, we are naturally finding ways to survive. Of course sometimes people make bad decisions, but they are still thinking that the choice is best for them. -Heikki
Peter Smith
December 23, 2010
(changed December 23, 2010)
Permalink
Let me recycle the line of response that I gave to a slightly different earlier question, with a few tweaks (and not disagreeing with my co-panelist, but with different emphases).
It is a truism that, when I fully act, it is as a result of my desires, my intentions, my goals. After all, if... Read more
Why do parents have the right to decide anything about a child's upbringing, or their moral, social, political and spiritual education? Young children are trusting when it comes to their parents, and may even believe falsehoods if their parents are the ones who are repeating these falsehoods. So why do we recognize a unilateral right for parents to teach their children whatever they want, and to withhold whatever information from their children that they deem appropriate? Why do we let parents pull their children out of sex ed class, or teach them a religion as a unilateral source of truth? Shouldn't parents have responsabilities, instead of rights? Surely shaping a child's mind, personality and outlook is not the "reward" parents get for feeding and clothing them! Is this just a practical issue ("There's nobody in a better position to take care of the kids, and there's no way we can stop people from teaching them whatever they want")? Or is there some fundamental moral reason parents have the right to do what they want with (or to) their children's minds?
Miriam Solomon
December 23, 2010
(changed December 23, 2010)
Permalink
I think you are right to claim that parents have responsibilities towards their children, and do not have the right to raise them "any way they want." Children are not property. The larger moral concern, however, is that the state will decide what children are to learn, and in American... Read more
I was taught by my parents, as a young boy, that I should never hit first, but that if anyone hurt me, I should hit back, to show them I wasn't worth messing with. This is basically how I dealt with violence until the fifth or sixth grade; I don't remember ever starting a fight, but I was picked on often because I was bilingual, and when push came to shove, I shoved. I always got into trouble with teachers when I fought back, and came to believe that they supported bullying because they never helped me when I was being bullied; I felt alienated, and didn't trust the teachers at all. Yet I remember what happened when I stopped hitting back, and just turned the other cheek: nobody helped me then, either, and I found myself defenseless against bullies who harassed me because of my bilingualism and my good grades - and because I was a "pussy" who wouldn't hit back. My girlfriend and I recently had a frank discussion about our future plans, and we would like to have children in the next few years, if finances permit it. I find myself wondering what to teach my own children, when the time comes. I don't believe violence is right and proper, and I don't want my children to turn into bullies or otherwise violent people - but I don't want them to be defenseless, and I don't want them to be made fun of or picked on because they restrain themselves. I need to balance my belief in peace and discussion with the fact that there are a lot of nasty kids out there who might harm my children. How can I do this? Should I teach my children to turn the other cheek, or to work things out an eye for an eye?
Gordon Marino
December 23, 2010
(changed December 23, 2010)
Permalink
There are different forms of violence- some physical, some verbal. It has been my experience that there are some angry and aggressive people whom you need to stand up to - if only to help them control themselves. I suggest that you get you future child involved in the practice of one or a... Read more
I studied Sinology for a year, and met a great deal of Chinese people. Whenever the topic came up, most of them - particularly the women - insisted that they would only ever date Chinese men, and were particularly vocal about not dating blacks or Japanese men. On the other hand, I met a Korean woman who had moved to Germany (where I lived at the time), and who said she had come looking for a husband, because she believed "Korean men are no good". Interracial relationships are becoming more and more common, and with them come stereotypes: there is one stereotype that would have us believe that all women love black men, and another that all men love East Asian women. For many people (though not as many as the stereotypes would have us believe), these racial preferences in dating and sexual attraction are real, not just media tropes. There really are women who only date black men, and men who only date East Asian woman (as well as the reverse, and all other possible combinations). The relationship of such preferences with racism are murky at best; is a woman who is mostly attracted to black men a racist, and if so, who is she discriminating against - men of her own race, or black men? Is a man who doesn't want to date black women a racist? What if he just happens to like pale skin? How can we tell what role racism plays in dating and romance, and when it's all just a matter of personal preference?
Nicholas D. Smith
December 23, 2010
(changed December 23, 2010)
Permalink
Some of the stereotypes that drive such preferences could, of course, be racist. But it is also true that the factors that attract us to others erotically are not generally matters of simple choice, and the mere presence of a preference "type" does not seem to me to be clear evidence... Read more
Do we have a duty to resolve contradictions within our own thoughts and opinions? For example, does a person who thinks killing animals is very wrong, but who has no qualms eating meat, need to revise one opinion or the other? What about someone who doesn't really believe in a god, yet insists on worshipping one and arguing for its existence? Or is it our choice to live with contradictions as we choose?
Jennifer Church
December 31, 2010
(changed December 31, 2010)
Permalink
I would like to add a couple of further considerations to Douglas Burnham's response.
I there is too much inconsistency between what a person professes to believe and what that person does, we have reason to doubt that she really believes what she says she does. If a friend claims to b... Read more