Recent Responses
Can you in detail explain the diffrences between intrinsic value and instrumentally value?
Miriam Solomon
September 30, 2010
(changed September 30, 2010)
Permalink
"Instrumental value" is the easiest to begin with. It is the value that something has because it helps you get something that you really ("instrinsically") value. So money is valuable because you can buy things that you really like/want with it. Money would not be valuable if you co... Read more
Do I have control over my own brain?
Eddy Nahmias
September 30, 2010
(changed September 30, 2010)
Permalink
Yes! But my answer is based on my metaphysics. I think that your brain is an essential part of you (along with your body) and that the part of you that consciously considers what to do and makes decisions is a part of your brain. So, you have control over your own brain because proces... Read more
I know that my life is extremely short and that all of my worries and anxieties are transient. I should just learn to enjoy and appreciate the moment. Yet I simply can't seem to let go of my everyday anxieties. There is always something clogging my mind. Is there some philosophical tradition which helps people to transcend such trivial concerns and find a sense of bliss? Would the religion of Buddhism be a useful tradition to explore?
Eddy Nahmias
September 30, 2010
(changed September 30, 2010)
Permalink
Yes, Buddhism suggests that we need to detach ourselves from our cravings and anxieties in order to escape from our suffering. The practice of meditation is designed to help with this process. By engaging in the focused breathing or other methods of meditation, you begin to learn to co... Read more
Nazism is an anti-Semitic and therefore immoral ideology. Public officials and institutions in Nazi-era Germany which did not speak out against Nazism therefore can be seen as having had a moral failing. Christianity is a homophobic and therefore immoral religion. Public officials and institutions of today which don't speak out against Christianity therefore have a moral failing. Is there anything wrong with this logic?
Eddy Nahmias
September 30, 2010
(changed September 30, 2010)
Permalink
I think the logic is fine, but I'm not sure about the content of the argument. The argument structure is:
1. X is an institution with an essential goal that is clearly immoral.
2. It is wrong for individuals and institutions not to do what they can to prevent an institution from achiev... Read more
I've been thinking lately about the story of the donkey and the two stacks of hay. In case you're not familiar with it here it is: a donkey is walking by, hungry as can be, and all of the sudden he sees two stacks of hay, each the same distance away from his position and each the exact same size. The donkey cannot make up his mind between the two stacks, and he dies. I recently got into an argument with someone about whether there is such a thing as a completely indifferent decision. In real life, the donkey would not die, would he? So that leaves us with the question: Is the donkey indifferent to the two stacks of hay or is there something in his subconscious that would compel him to choose the left or the right stack?
Sean Greenberg
September 28, 2010
(changed September 28, 2010)
Permalink
The donkey in question is usually referred to as 'Buridan's ass' (although there is some question as to whether the example is properly attributed to the medieval philosopher John Buridan .) The early modern philosopher G. W. Leibniz was quite fond of this example, and appealed to Bur... Read more
Is a moral ought an unconditional ought? In a book on nursing ethics I came across the idea that a moral ought was unconditional. Contained no ifs or buts. Nurses ought to help their patients. Not ifs about it. It was stated as being unconditional. First page, first paragraph They said unlike moral oughts, other oughts are conditional... if you want to be well rested you ought to go to bed early, that sort of thing. But it is not true that nursing oughts are also conditional? Nurses ought to help their patients if they want to keep their jobs/follow nursing guidelines...etc. How can there truly be an unconditional ought?
Peter S. Fosl
September 24, 2010
(changed September 24, 2010)
Permalink
For myself, I doubt there are unconditional oughts. Your book seems to have been informed by a specific kind of ethics associated with the work of Immanuel Kant, among others. For Kant there are two kinds of imperatives. One kind, called "hypothetical" imperatives are the sort where wh... Read more
One aspect of Muslim culture that runs against the grain of Americans is the lack of the acceptance of separation of church and state. Some (many?) Muslim sects, like the Taliban wish to institute a muslimocracy in which the religious leaders, i.e. imams and such, are also the state. Under Sharia law, it seems that religious texts determine justice in any kind of human disputes, with little regard to circumstances, and with broad interpretation by those who claim to be learned with respect to Koranic law; oh, and with rather crude sentences like stoning. This kind of society is quite different from one in which there is a civil code that can be invoked without bringing God into the equation explicitly. Certainly, some of the components of Western civil law have roots in parts of the bible, such as the ten commandments. But civil, i.e. governmental and commercial, interests pushed religion from the leading role in Western society and culture to a mostly minor footnote over the last several centuries. Individuals are not judged primarily on their morals or their religion, but rather on what they can accomplish, and how efficiently and quickly they can do it. This leaves many ethical questions to the religious folks to decide, if they don't impact business. The existence of a civil society fosters the use of logic and understanding, and promotes cooperation to minimize time wasted in disputes. On the negative side of the coin, no moral authority will speak out when the market-makers exploit human ignorance and man's covetous nature to create a dog-eat-dog world filled with meaningless pursuits. Without a civil society, justice must be haphazard due to the nature of the guidance provided by Holy Books. The Koran is likely no less self-contradicting nor more consistent than the Christian Bible or the Jewish Talmud. Muslim groups within America appear to be content with the separation of church and state; but, if their holy book says that the believers should make Sharia the law of the land, that is seditious! It speaks against democracy and the human freedoms for which the country stands. It would be useful if someone(s) familiar with the subject would address this conflict in an open forum. Perhaps there are whole books, or chapters thereof in the literature that have covered this. Does anyone know?
Peter S. Fosl
September 24, 2010
(changed September 24, 2010)
Permalink
Theocracy is indeed one of the most dangerous political phenomena the world faces today--especially Muslim, Christian, and Jewish theocracy. That having been said, what the Koran says or doesn't say isn't terribly important. Believers of all three of the Abrahamic religions commonly ign... Read more
I am a philosophy student in my second year and was disturbed by a conversation in my "philosophy of mind" course. The students were bashing philosophy as a discipline: "a fun waste of time", "sitting and thinking" for a living rather than finding a real job, etc. I'm sure you get the picture. I was discouraged by this. rather than being surrounded by others with a deep passion for philosophy, i am surrounded by shallow thinkers. My question is, how should one go about handling criticisms of this kind, both internally, as well as in social situations as mentioned above? it seems useless to defend myself to those who hold such opinions, but that doesn't mean i want the majority (and it really is most people i meet) to be holding on to those negative stereotypes. How often do you find yourself in these kinds of situations?
Eddy Nahmias
September 24, 2010
(changed September 24, 2010)
Permalink
Well, tell these "skeptics about the value of philosophy" that philosophy majors will probably do "real jobs" better than most other majors (see some of the links below), because they will know how to read, think, write, and communicate more clearly. Remind them that they won't remember... Read more
One popular defense of theism makes the claim that, without god, we would have no basis for morals. Let's accept for the sake of argument that there can be no morals absent god. Does the alleged dependence of morality upon religion really evidence the existence of god? Or is the concern about morals actually irrelevant to justifying belief in theism?
Charles Taliaferro
September 24, 2010
(changed September 24, 2010)
Permalink
The status of morality does have an important role in some arguments for and against theistic belief and it has an important place in developing almost any comprehensive account of human nature, other animals and the cosmos. If indeed there are objective moral rights and wrongs, g... Read more
Do philosophers ever completely agree and should they?
Eddy Nahmias
September 24, 2010
(changed September 24, 2010)
Permalink
I disagree with Prof. Leaman that philosophers completely agree on the point that they never completely agree on anything. Uh oh, did I just prove his point?
Anyway, putting aside the problem that if "completely" is taken literally, then almost nothing is completely agreed on (and not... Read more