Recent Responses
Given that that most people would agree with 1 and 2 that: 1. Causing great suffering is wickedness if done in the absence of qualifying conditions. For example bombing a city is generally wrong since it causes suffering but if bombing that city ends a war then that is a qualifying condition which may absolve the wrongness of that act. and 2. Eating animals causes great suffering. How can meat eaters see themselves as anything other than wicked people? Certainly eating meat causes great suffering so the only thing that would keep it from being wicked would be the presence of a qualifying condition. What is the qualifying condition in the case of meat eating? That is tastes SO YUMMY?
Gordon Marino
July 28, 2010
(changed July 28, 2010)
Permalink
Many see themselves as in need of protein and or without the time to go vegetarian. They also regard their own lives as much more valuable than the lives of say chickens. Some also argue that animals eat one another and that the food chain is part of a natural process. I do not agree with this lo... Read more
How are we to define colors? I have two suggestions, but I don’t know where to go from here: (1) they could be defined based on the particular subjective experiences (particular qualia) themselves or they could be defined based on the descriptor or color attribute that one applies to an object. For example: does the sky appear blue to me if and only if the sky gives rise to a particular color experience or does the sky appear blue to me just in case I (or a society) attribute “blue” to the sky regardless of the actual experience that I (we) have? Under the first definition, we only agree that the sky is blue if we actually share the same color experience whereas the second definition does not require this subjective similarity.
Allen Stairs
July 27, 2010
(changed July 27, 2010)
Permalink
There are a couple of ways we might go here. Thinking about the sky, it's a pretty good bet that most people with normal color vision (roughly, people who can pass a color-blindness test like this one ) will say that the sky is blue and will agree that a good many other things are blue, even if th... Read more
In The Stone column on the New York Times Site, there is an article about the issue of moral responsibility, in light of the notion that we are what we are because of such factors as genetics, environment, or perhaps determinism and/or chance. In the end the author stoically concludes, that despite it all in some sense we can choose to take responsibility for our actions. While I respect the author's sense of duty, can we fairly extend that same responsibility to other people? For example, could there still be any defense of punishment that isn't consequentalist. For that matter how can any nonconsequentialist ethical theory hold up against this argument?
Eddy Nahmias
July 27, 2010
(changed July 27, 2010)
Permalink
Given your question, you may be interested in a discussion of Strawson's NYTimes article at the free will/moral responsibility blog, Flickers of Freedom, here.
There's also a discussion on retribution and punishment (and psychopaths) at the blog here.
You'll see in these discussions that there are... Read more
Why is it that when a white person says a racial slur, such as "nigger" it is thought to be the most heinous crime. However, when a non-white, in particular blacks call whites "crackers" it is dismissed as nothing. Why is there such a double standard in American society? Why is reverse racism rampant more than ever? Whites have to fear of being shunned for voicing their injustices, because if they do, they will be called a racist. If a white is mistreated due to race in the work place nothing occurs. On the other hand, if it happens to a black it gets mass media coverage. The politics are backwards, the NAACP, pushes racial equality for blacks, yet they are immersed with racism towards whites; not all are but it has been displayed. If a white were to make an Organization for the advancement of their race it would be an outcry for its dismantle. Shouldn't all race Organizations be abolished since we're under the same umbrella, the Human race? I too often experienced this firsthand, being of black decent. I'm perplexed by these occurrences.
Richard Heck
July 25, 2010
(changed July 25, 2010)
Permalink
The questioner makes a number of factual claims which seem to me to need rather a lot of support. In fact, I'm not sure that any of the factual claims the questioner makes are correct.
Who is it that dismisses racially charged remarks by blacks as "nothing"? What examples of workplace mistreatmen... Read more
In ZFC the primitive "membership" usually has the statement "x is an element of the set y". My question is "is the element 'x'" of a set ever not a set within ZFC?
Richard Heck
July 25, 2010
(changed July 25, 2010)
Permalink
To add a bit more, there are some interesting applications of urelements in set theory. Perhaps the most famous example is Quine's theory New Foundations. NF, as it is known, which does not permit urelements, remains something of a puzzle: It is not known if it is consistent. But NFU, which is jus... Read more
In The Stone column on the New York Times Site, there is an article about the issue of moral responsibility, in light of the notion that we are what we are because of such factors as genetics, environment, or perhaps determinism and/or chance. In the end the author stoically concludes, that despite it all in some sense we can choose to take responsibility for our actions. While I respect the author's sense of duty, can we fairly extend that same responsibility to other people? For example, could there still be any defense of punishment that isn't consequentalist. For that matter how can any nonconsequentialist ethical theory hold up against this argument?
Eddy Nahmias
July 27, 2010
(changed July 27, 2010)
Permalink
Given your question, you may be interested in a discussion of Strawson's NYTimes article at the free will/moral responsibility blog, Flickers of Freedom, here.
There's also a discussion on retribution and punishment (and psychopaths) at the blog here.
You'll see in these discussions that there are... Read more
Do humans have a greater right to live than other animals? If so, would beings of much greater intelligence and perception hold that same right over humans?
Gordon Marino
July 25, 2010
(changed July 25, 2010)
Permalink
I am not a vegetarian but I think I should be. I would not couch the issue in rights language but putting animals through suffering just so I can have my New York Strip Steak just seems wrong to me. Given human history, I cannot imagine what kind of arguments we humans could muster if aliens cam... Read more
Why is it that when a white person says a racial slur, such as "nigger" it is thought to be the most heinous crime. However, when a non-white, in particular blacks call whites "crackers" it is dismissed as nothing. Why is there such a double standard in American society? Why is reverse racism rampant more than ever? Whites have to fear of being shunned for voicing their injustices, because if they do, they will be called a racist. If a white is mistreated due to race in the work place nothing occurs. On the other hand, if it happens to a black it gets mass media coverage. The politics are backwards, the NAACP, pushes racial equality for blacks, yet they are immersed with racism towards whites; not all are but it has been displayed. If a white were to make an Organization for the advancement of their race it would be an outcry for its dismantle. Shouldn't all race Organizations be abolished since we're under the same umbrella, the Human race? I too often experienced this firsthand, being of black decent. I'm perplexed by these occurrences.
Richard Heck
July 25, 2010
(changed July 25, 2010)
Permalink
The questioner makes a number of factual claims which seem to me to need rather a lot of support. In fact, I'm not sure that any of the factual claims the questioner makes are correct.
Who is it that dismisses racially charged remarks by blacks as "nothing"? What examples of workplace mistreatmen... Read more
My question is in part about language and in part about the nature of causality. I have noticed that some persons use the phrases "at random" or "by chance" in ways that make no sense to me. For instance, someone might claim that a coin which is flipped lands heads up "by chance" or that complex weather phenomena occur "at random." When pressed on what this means, they usually respond that the coin landed heads up for no reason; it just as easily have been tails up. Surely this isn't true nor is it what they genuinely mean, is it? The side on which coins land is due to weight distribution, pressure, wind, and a handful of simple mechanical principles and weather phenomena are highly complex systems that operate by way of long causal chains, but neither of them happen without any reason at all. Do these phrases really just mean, "this outcome could not be predicted because I don't have the data?" Nothing really occurs *by way of chance*, but we simply look back on outcomes that couldn't be anticipated and claim that they happened at random, right? Thanks, -Justin
Alexander George
July 24, 2010
(changed July 24, 2010)
Permalink
For a related discussion of the notion of randomness see Question 264.
Log in to post comments
I find it hard to arrive at a conclusion for the following problem: suppose I live in country where my constitution upholds my right to practice my religion (I mean a secular country), how justified is another person when he tells me that my children are not welcome in a school that is run under some other religious guidelines ? I mean the religious foundation on which the school was found is different from the religion I (and my children) practice at home. Does this person have a right to say that I cannot practice my religion in his premises ? Even though we both live in the same (secular) country. Isn't my constitutional right being violated ? I also want to bring to light the recent proposal by France to ban burqua, which has gathered a lot of unwanted attention. Also, does being secular mean freedom from religion or freedom of religion ?
Gordon Marino
July 24, 2010
(changed July 24, 2010)
Permalink
I'm in aggreement with half of Charles' last point. I don't think that your constitutional right is being violated if the government has good reason to believe that the practice of your religion might lead to violence and so the suppression of the rights of others. Also, though the meaning of wo... Read more