Recent Responses
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
What the hell are morals anyway? Why *can't* I do whatever I want, to whomever I want? So what if I say "Screw the social contract!" I never signed anything. What's so great about morality anyway?
Thomas Pogge
January 2, 2010
(changed January 2, 2010)
Permalink
Some of the things you want to do may not be within your power; then you can't do them.
Regarding the rest, you can do whatever you want to whomever you want. If you say "screw the social contract" and do nasty things to other people, it's quite likely that the social contract will screw you... Read more
What are the most notable and the best books with the subject : "history of philosophy", that can be used as a reliable reference?
Andrew N. Carpenter
January 1, 2010
(changed January 1, 2010)
Permalink
One more thought: if you are interested in twentieth century analytic philosophy, Scott Soames' two-volume history provides clear and reasonably reliable interpretations of the history of some of the movements within that tradition.
Even though Soames does not provide a full or complet... Read more
Obviously, some academic fields are considered more difficult than others - for instance, physics might be considered more difficult than geology. However, there must be people who find geology (and its fellow "easier" fields) to be much more difficult than "difficult" fields. Similarly, state tests tend to be curved so that they all end up with about the same grade spreads, even if it means making a test harder or more difficult from year to year, so it is hard to tell from these examples what is actually difficult. So, can an academic topic be objectively difficult?
Andrew N. Carpenter
January 1, 2010
(changed January 1, 2010)
Permalink
It isn't clear to me exactly what sort of academic "topic" interests you the most. So, I'll consider several options.
First, consider whether some academic disciplines are moredifficult than others. Given the sheer diversity of academic workwithin each of the various disciplines, I don'... Read more
Does it make sense to define atheism as "a lack of belief in a God" rather than as "a belief in the nonexistence of God?"
Andrew N. Carpenter
January 1, 2010
(changed January 1, 2010)
Permalink
I don't see anyphilosophical reason to conflate the conventional distinction betweenatheism and agnosticism, although I think that there exist somepolitical and social pressures to do that in contemporary Americansociety: some individuals who affirm atheism in private are morecomfortabl... Read more
Is it irrational to desire or view as beneficial things which would, in effect, make one a different person? For example, take someone who has a great admiration for David Beckham. While there it might seem perfectly ordinary for this person to say things like "I wish I were just like David Beckham," it seems to me that this wish, if taken literally, is somehow incoherent.
Thomas Pogge
December 31, 2009
(changed December 31, 2009)
Permalink
The answer is NO.
Whatever incoherence there might be in wishing that *I* were just like David Beckham, this does not render it incoherent or irrational to desire or view as beneficial things which would, in effect, make one a different person.
Thus suppose that I wish that the person sit... Read more
Is it ever rational to be immoral?
Thomas Pogge
December 31, 2009
(changed December 31, 2009)
Permalink
Short as it is, this question is tricky because of two ambiguities.
1. "rational" could be understood in the sense of choosing what are foreseeably the most effective means to given ends, or it could be understood in a more ambitious sense that would allow the commitment to certain combi... Read more
I have listened to various recordings of Handel's Messiah recently. Each has different rendering of the original work. What is the difference between modifying musical works of art and "touching up" a classical painting or poem?
Douglas Burnham
December 25, 2009
(changed December 25, 2009)
Permalink
A good question, and highly seasonal!The Messiah is an interesting subject because there is no ONEoriginal. Handel, always both an artist and a businessman, puttogether several different versions for various different occasionsand groups of musicians. So, there are a number of authentic... Read more
Do employers have some kind of ethical obligation to employ their countrymen (as opposed to outsourcing)?
Eric Silverman
December 24, 2009
(changed December 24, 2009)
Permalink
One might make a Kantian style argument that it is unethical to 'use' one's countrymen by using the local resources and the education you received within the community to start your business, but then outsource the overwhelming majority of the work (and the implicit benefits) to a differ... 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