Recent Responses
While reading through some questions in the religious section, I came across Peter Smith saying [http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/2250/], "What is it with the obsession of (much) contemporary organized religions with matters of sexuality? It really is pretty bizarre. And for sure, if some of the energy wasted on pruriently fussing about who gets to do what with whom and where were spent campaigning on issues of social justice, say, then the world would be a better place. But I digress ...". Can any philosophers, including Peter Smith, tell me if my reasoning is valid regarding this (or come up with their own reasoning as to why an organized religion would have such rules): There are several reasons why organized religions could be "obsessed" about matters of sexuality, about "who gets to do what with whom and where" etc. 1. Disease: STD's are horrible, and the AIDs crisis in Africa is a good example as to why an organized religion might stress sexual relations with only one partner to whom you are married (you can also come at this by saying the Church should support the use of condoms, but note that it is largely only one church that is denying the use of condoms in Africa). 2. The imperative and teaching that you ought to stick with one partner in life, and not commit adultery or have multitudes of sexual partners helps one psychologically in relationships. For example, if one knows that one's wife/husband has slept with 100 other people in their life, one may experience some doubts about oneself and about one's partner, whether they are valid or not, they still occur. The constant harping of the church on staying loyal to one's spouse is hard to understand at times, but I'll leave that to the professionals to dissect, as clearly to be sexually free and unburdened by the "obsession" of the church is far better. 3. It promotes relational stability. A Jewish professor of mine said that his marriage was greatly helped by the great sex he and his wife shared, which was enhanced by their religious beliefs. Every sabbath they not only made time for God, prayer and family, but for each other romantically. If you are having your desires and needs fulfilled outside of the marriage or relationship, this only hurts it. So in these senses it seems religions have good reason to be involved or "obsessed" for the well-being of their people. I would agree with anyone who showed how some rules could be oppressive to a gender or sexual orientation, as I am writing this as a gay man. But on the whole, to be dismissive of such rules or teachings seems unthoughtful.
Peter Smith
August 13, 2010
(changed August 13, 2010)
Permalink
Of course we might expect religions to take issues about sexual life and conduct seriously (though with some due sense of proportion, compared with other matters, like issues of social justice -- and it is the seemingly too prevalent lack of that sense of proportion that prompted my passing rem... Read more
Excuse me, my English is not perfect. But I´ll try to make myself understood. I´m very interested in the problem, which Wittgenstein named "the bewitchment of our mind by language". I think, language is a cage inside we live, if we are not aware of its mechanisms. I want to ask you, if this topic is already investigated? Is there any explicit literature concerning it? Thank you very much. Yours sincerely. S.H.
Sean Greenberg
August 12, 2010
(changed August 12, 2010)
Permalink
"A picture held us captive," Wittgestein writes in the Philosophical Investigations, "and we could not get outside it, for it lay in our language...." The sort of picture to which Wittgenstein is referring here consists of pre-philosophical assumptions about the nature of language, of mind,... Read more
We like to believe that we are special, but how can everyone be special? Surely a term like that is in language in order to draw distinction. If we are all special, does that mean that no one is?
Allen Stairs
August 12, 2010
(changed August 12, 2010)
Permalink
You're right that there needs to be a distinction that goes with the word if it's to be of much use. And there are no doubt some sense of the word "special" (meaning something like rare or unique) that don't allow for all of us to be special. But there's still logical room for a sense in which... Read more
I really don't understand what the big deal is with the apparent 'fine tuning' of the constants of the universe, or even if 'fine tuning' is even apparent! The conditions have to be just right for life to emerge, sure, but so what? Conditions have to be just right for many things in the universe to occur, but we don't always suspect an outside agent as responsible for setting them up that way just so they'll happen. Is this the final refuge of the 'god of the gaps' habit the humans tend to fall in to? I also don't get the need for a multiverse theory either. To me it's a bit like saying, because I rolled a six on a die there must be five others each rolling the other possible numbers in order to explain it. Okay, much bigger die....
Andrew Pessin
August 12, 2010
(changed August 12, 2010)
Permalink
let me add a bit more in favor of the argument here ... we do tend to believe that certain very improbable things do not occur by chance -- poker/slot machine analogies common -- if your friend gets five royal flushes in a row you'd almost certainly be pulling your piece on him -- the fine tu... Read more
If a judgmental individual asserts his or her judgments outright and an individual says, “You’re so judgmental,” will it make that person a hypocrite for judging? Is there any way not to be considered judgmental? If tell a drug dealer, what you’re doing is harmful to society; you should stop. Am I being a hypocrite for judging? Or, is there correct way or wrong way of conducting oneself? Does one have the right to judge a rapist, child molester, and cannibal?
Donald Baxter
August 12, 2010
(changed August 12, 2010)
Permalink
Not everyone who judges is judgmental. To be judgmental is to be prone to condemning people without regard to what can be said on their behalf. If you reserve condemnation for cases in which little can be said for the person and much against, then you are not being judgmental. So, if you have... Read more
Is it bad to have a favorite sibling?
Peter Smith
August 12, 2010
(changed August 12, 2010)
Permalink
My maternal grandmother was the youngest but one of a Victorian family of ten; her oldest brothers were about twenty years older than her. It doesn't seem at all morally inappropriate that she should have cared about her nearest siblings much more than those hardly-known distant figures who lef... Read more
On the "about the site" page, reference is made to your cadre of "trained philosophers," and in many questions and answers on the site, the panelists are described as "professional philosophers." These phrases imply that philosophy from a degreed person or one who professes to be a philosopher as a means of earning an income is superior to philosophy from the likes of Rousseau, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, or Eric Hoffer (all meagerly educated, working-class tradesmen). We know that is not the case, which leads me to the question. If it is not education or profession, then what is it that makes one a philosopher?
Sean Greenberg
August 12, 2010
(changed August 12, 2010)
Permalink
This excellent question goes to the heart of the vexed issue of what philosophy is (itself a philosophical question, which has received widely divergent answers in the past 2500 years.) Today, there is a profession of philosophy: in order to enter into this profession, it is nearly always r... Read more
Is it bad to have a favorite sibling?
Peter Smith
August 12, 2010
(changed August 12, 2010)
Permalink
My maternal grandmother was the youngest but one of a Victorian family of ten; her oldest brothers were about twenty years older than her. It doesn't seem at all morally inappropriate that she should have cared about her nearest siblings much more than those hardly-known distant figures who lef... Read more
Is it wrong to answer a question with a lie when 1. The answer is none of the questioner's business AND 2. To attempt to dodge the question would arouse suspicion AND 3. To answer the question truthfully would cause some harm For example, suppose a woman needs to take some time off for fertility treatment. If her boss asks why she is taking time off, is it okay for her to lie about what she will do with the time?
Sean Greenberg
August 12, 2010
(changed August 12, 2010)
Permalink
Let's distinguish the question of whether it is wrong to lie from the specific example that you offer; I'll treat them in turn. Whether it is ever appropriate to lie depends on what one thinks determines the permissibility of an action: Kant, for example, at least on some interpretations--t... Read more
Would you please propose me some good academic books on the foundations of ethics?
Sean Greenberg
August 12, 2010
(changed August 12, 2010)
Permalink
There are numerous books on the topic. I recommend the recently published, excellent book by John Deigh, An Introduction to Ethics (Cambridge University Press, 2009).
Log in to post comments