Recent Responses
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
Is it valid to talk about ethnic groups as having a distinctive psychological make-up? Can we speak of a "European psychology", an "Arab psychology", "Chinese psychology", etc?
Nicholas D. Smith
December 23, 2010
(changed December 23, 2010)
Permalink
There are broad differences between ethnic and cultural groups that have to do with the ways in which people are socialized into those groups. But to understand these artifacts of culture as differences in psychology seems to me to be a mistake. Anyone who has had any kind of rich i... Read more
Is it wrong not to inform a friend's organization of a potentially bad hire--because I work with this person and want them to leave our organization? And yes, it's a bad hire, by the work ethic standards of everyone else I work with, it's not a personal issue!
Nicholas D. Smith
December 23, 2010
(changed December 23, 2010)
Permalink
I guess there are different angles to this one. Is it wrong in a business ethics sense not to tell your friend's organization about the person they may hire? Not unlesss you are one of the people contacted for a referencce, I suppose. You are not obligated to inform other businesse... Read more
Are philosophical thought experiments just cases of reasoning about counter-factual scenarios? I ask because it strikes me as obvious that we engage in this kind of reasoning all the time without thinking it special or suspect. Is a thought experiment, then, simply reasoning about a counter-factual which happens to be more fantastic than usual?
Richard Heck
December 21, 2010
(changed December 21, 2010)
Permalink
I don't myself have a definite view about this, but the suggestion you are making has been vigorously defended by Timothy Williamson, in his book The Philosophy of Philosophy.
Log in to post comments
I was recently watching a program on National Geographic about North Korea in which a young man was interviewed about his time in the country. He was being imprisoned in one of the 'work camps' in the country in which he was treated as a slave. I understand that North Korea relies on slave labor to keep its weak economy moving because it's so insular. Anyway, this young man managed to escape the camp, and eventually, the country. I believe he lives in South Korea now, as a free citizen. However, because this young man escaped, his entire immediate family was murdered. Apparently, this is a way that North Korea dissuades people from escaping. Additionally, this young man knew that his family was going to be murdered if he successfully escaped from the work camp and he did so anyway. Is he morally responsible for his family members' deaths? After all, he knew they'd be murdered if he succeeded, and because he undertook the task, he intended to succeed...and yet, there seems to be some nagging question about moral responsibility or 'agency' involved. I was just looking for some input from some professionals because I thought this question was very interesting.
Thomas Pogge
December 19, 2010
(changed December 19, 2010)
Permalink
I disagree with Oliver's response to this question. In my view, "letting happen" is best understood as remaining passive when one might instead be averting harm from others by helping or protecting them. The failure to save a drowning swimmer would be an example, as would be the failure to... Read more
Do parents have a responsibility to take care of their biological children. Or do they just have a responsibility to make sure their biological children are being taken care of (and it need not matter who does the actual taking care.) To illustrate the difference, suppose a wife and husband are perfectly capable of producing healthy children together. However, the wife has a demanding career and would rather avoid pregnancy. So the couple finds another woman who is willing to be inseminated by the husband, and pays her some money in exchange for delivering the baby. When the baby is born, he is genetically the son of the surrogate mother, however he will be taken care by the wife. Has the child been wronged, since his biological mother will not take of him? Or did the biological mother fulfill her obligation to her child (making sure he will be taken care of by someone, even if that person is not his biological mother?)
Oliver Leaman
December 17, 2010
(changed December 17, 2010)
Permalink
Anyone can look after a child well, and many of the best carers are not biologically related to the child. Those who are hostile to surrogacy do have a point though in wondering at whether the subsequent psychological and legal issues would bring in their train difficulties for the growin... Read more
I was recently watching a program on National Geographic about North Korea in which a young man was interviewed about his time in the country. He was being imprisoned in one of the 'work camps' in the country in which he was treated as a slave. I understand that North Korea relies on slave labor to keep its weak economy moving because it's so insular. Anyway, this young man managed to escape the camp, and eventually, the country. I believe he lives in South Korea now, as a free citizen. However, because this young man escaped, his entire immediate family was murdered. Apparently, this is a way that North Korea dissuades people from escaping. Additionally, this young man knew that his family was going to be murdered if he successfully escaped from the work camp and he did so anyway. Is he morally responsible for his family members' deaths? After all, he knew they'd be murdered if he succeeded, and because he undertook the task, he intended to succeed...and yet, there seems to be some nagging question about moral responsibility or 'agency' involved. I was just looking for some input from some professionals because I thought this question was very interesting.
Thomas Pogge
December 19, 2010
(changed December 19, 2010)
Permalink
I disagree with Oliver's response to this question. In my view, "letting happen" is best understood as remaining passive when one might instead be averting harm from others by helping or protecting them. The failure to save a drowning swimmer would be an example, as would be the failure to... Read more
I'll try to make this concise, but will probably fail. Many ancient philosophers across numerous cultures recommended moderation or even elimination of the desires and passions as a/the way to deeper understanding or, in the case of Buddhism, enlightenment, whatever that is. I'll assume that the panelists here will be familiar with at least a handful of examples, such as Socrates, Pyrrho, Epicurus, Siddhartha Gautama, Lao Tzu, etc. I apologize for listing several questions, but as they're so closely related I hope that their number will help triangulate on exactly the point I'm hoping to learn about: Is this advice still relevant for modern humans? Is there any reason to pay heed to this aspect of ancient philosophy, other than as an academic topic? Is there any evidence to support the claim that the control, reduction or elimination of desires and passions leads to greater happiness or deeper subjective understanding of the nature of the human experience? Many thanks in advance and in hopes of getting an answer.
Charles Taliaferro
December 16, 2010
(changed December 16, 2010)
Permalink
What a wonderful question! You are right about there being a long tradition of sage advise on moderating desire. There is an excellent review of this tradition in the west along with some very insightful observations in the book Emotion and Peace of Mind by Richard Sorabji (Oxford... Read more
I think that anyone who knows how to hold a grudge knows what it's like to wish to remain angry at someone. I mean something like the following: 1. You're angry at someone. 2. Since you're angry, you'd like to punish or otherwise get back at this person. 3. But you know that this can't happen if your feelings cool and you lose your edge. 4. So part of your plan for revenge consists precisely in remaining angry. 5. In this way, anger takes itself as an objective. Accordingly, there is an odd feeling of disappointment you get when you inevitably calm down ("Don't give up! Stay mad!"). Is there something irrational about thinking this way?
Charles Taliaferro
December 16, 2010
(changed December 16, 2010)
Permalink
Fascinating line of reasoning! One thing to question is premise two. Granted if you are angry at someone, it follows that you are judging that the person has done something wrong (wether to you or to someone or something you identify with or value). But it does not follow that you... Read more
What role do hypothetical situations play in philosophy? For example; most of us consider it to be a moral axiom that paedophilia is never morally justified. But we can think of a hypothetical situation, for example person X being forced to engage in acts of paedophilia by a demented individual who threatens to kill a child if person X does not engage in lascivious acts with the child. Now this hypothetical situation is wildly speculative and extremely unlikely to ever occur in the real world. So does it disprove the axiom that paedophilia is never morally justified or not?
Richard Heck
December 16, 2010
(changed December 16, 2010)
Permalink
I think the answer depends very much upon what one thinks one is doing philosophically. But the important point here is that moral claims in particular, and many of the philosophical claims that get evaluated using these invented examples, are meant to be more than just true as things actu... Read more