Recent Responses
Do animals have morals and ethics? Otherwise, are ethics natural or is it something humans made up?
Jean Kazez
January 12, 2010
(changed January 12, 2010)
Permalink
I'm inclined to think there is rudimentary morality in non-human animals. Rather than try to convince you, I'll suggest a good book on the matter (with "objections" at the back)--Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved, by Frans De Waal. As to whether ethics (our ethics) is natural or... Read more
It's becoming increasingly clear that democratic societies are incapable of solving long-range, diffuse ecological problems such as climate change and peak oil, which, although indistinct and nebulous, pose what are potentially existential threats to whole populations. How serious a threat does this pose to the legitimacy of democracy? A related question, or perhaps the same question in different language: the inter-generational transfer of resources which democracies permit is clearly immoral, and profoundly so. At what point does this immorality trump the morality inherent in democratic institutions?
Andrew N. Carpenter
January 11, 2010
(changed January 11, 2010)
Permalink
I agree with Thomas that it would be nice if we could identify multiple forms of government that can handle these ecological issues -- it would be much better to be able to make comparative assessments of those forms of governments and their capacities and legitimacies than to contemp... Read more
Who are some philosophers who wrote about the value and conditions of work, other than Marx?
Andrew N. Carpenter
January 7, 2010
(changed January 7, 2010)
Permalink
Other historical figures who write on these themes are Plato,Aristotle, Aquinas, Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Kant, and Mill. Many of thesethinkers discussed together in intriguing ways private property rightsand the value of work, and I think that Marx's arguments bearinteresting relations to,... Read more
To what extent is it acceptable for someone to present an opinion on something of which they have no first hand knowledge? Specifically, if someone has an opinion about an author without having read any of their books and only having heard others speak about them, are they still entitled not only to an opinion about said author, but also for their opinion to be taken seriously? Alongside this, if we can have an opinion about something for which we cannot have first hand knowledge (e.g. the French Revolution) but only through information we have read in historical accounts, does this imply that we do not need first hand knowledge at all?
Mitch Green
January 7, 2010
(changed January 7, 2010)
Permalink
Thank you for your question. I would suggest that the "secondhand" opinions you are interested in might in some cases be justified; in others less so. Imagine for instance that I've read a good deal about environmental damage in China. I've never been there, and so have no firsthand experienc... Read more
This question is just a few days out of season, but is it ethical to celebrate christmas (Christmas?) if you are an atheist?
Allen Stairs
January 7, 2010
(changed January 7, 2010)
Permalink
I guess it depends on what you mean by "celebrate Christmas." Suppose the atheist likes the traditions of exchanging gifts, getting together with family and so on and that's why s/he "celebrates" Christmas. I dare say there are a good many people who fit that description. Hard to see any ethic... Read more
Can we make sense of claims to the effect that language X is "harder" than language Y?
Allen Stairs
January 7, 2010
(changed January 7, 2010)
Permalink
We can at least make relative sense of a claim like this. For a native English speaker, Chinese is harder than Spanish. How so? Because English speakers can achieve a high level of mastery of Spanish much more quickly, on average, than they can with Chinese. Obviously other such comparisons am... Read more
Can we make sense of claims to the effect that language X is "harder" than language Y?
Allen Stairs
January 7, 2010
(changed January 7, 2010)
Permalink
We can at least make relative sense of a claim like this. For a native English speaker, Chinese is harder than Spanish. How so? Because English speakers can achieve a high level of mastery of Spanish much more quickly, on average, than they can with Chinese. Obviously other such comparisons am... Read more
Hi. Take the following syllogism : John believes that green people should be killed. Mushmush is a green person, a neighbour of John. ====================== Thus, John believes that Mushmush should be killed. Formally, the argument seems valid. However, in reality it doesn't work. A persona can believe that all people with quality X should be killed, but not think it about a specific person he knows. So is there a logical contradiction here? What happens? Thank you, Sam
Eddy Nahmias
January 4, 2010
(changed January 4, 2010)
Permalink
This is a nice case of what can go wrong when you (i.e., I) do philosophy too quickly! As Richard charitably suggests, (I think) I was reading the argument (too quickly) to say:
1. John believes that all green people should be killed, and
2. John believes that Mushmush is a green person,
3.... Read more
Hi. Take the following syllogism : John believes that green people should be killed. Mushmush is a green person, a neighbour of John. ====================== Thus, John believes that Mushmush should be killed. Formally, the argument seems valid. However, in reality it doesn't work. A persona can believe that all people with quality X should be killed, but not think it about a specific person he knows. So is there a logical contradiction here? What happens? Thank you, Sam
Eddy Nahmias
January 4, 2010
(changed January 4, 2010)
Permalink
This is a nice case of what can go wrong when you (i.e., I) do philosophy too quickly! As Richard charitably suggests, (I think) I was reading the argument (too quickly) to say:
1. John believes that all green people should be killed, and
2. John believes that Mushmush is a green person,
3.... Read more
Hi. Take the following syllogism : John believes that green people should be killed. Mushmush is a green person, a neighbour of John. ====================== Thus, John believes that Mushmush should be killed. Formally, the argument seems valid. However, in reality it doesn't work. A persona can believe that all people with quality X should be killed, but not think it about a specific person he knows. So is there a logical contradiction here? What happens? Thank you, Sam
Eddy Nahmias
January 4, 2010
(changed January 4, 2010)
Permalink
This is a nice case of what can go wrong when you (i.e., I) do philosophy too quickly! As Richard charitably suggests, (I think) I was reading the argument (too quickly) to say:
1. John believes that all green people should be killed, and
2. John believes that Mushmush is a green person,
3.... Read more