Recent Responses
In a hypothetical situation I am a vegan talking to a meat eater who buys his meat from a supermarket and has no interest in where it came from. I say that I don't think people have the right to eat meat unless they are willing to learn about what it takes to provide that meat, witness it first hand or even produce it for themselves. He says that he doesn't want to know where it came from and is quite happy for someone else to do the dirty work if they are happy to and does not feel at all guilty. Is he morally wrong and do I have a valid argument?
Jean Kazez
September 18, 2009
(changed September 18, 2009)
Permalink
The phrase "insensitive to suffering" might mean--(1) "culpably unaware of it" or "unsympathetic to it." Or it might mean (2) "trivializing it" or "giving it too little weight."
If you shoot a rabbit, that's got to cause the rabbit to suffer quite a lot. Surely there's a good chance o... Read more
In a hypothetical situation I am a vegan talking to a meat eater who buys his meat from a supermarket and has no interest in where it came from. I say that I don't think people have the right to eat meat unless they are willing to learn about what it takes to provide that meat, witness it first hand or even produce it for themselves. He says that he doesn't want to know where it came from and is quite happy for someone else to do the dirty work if they are happy to and does not feel at all guilty. Is he morally wrong and do I have a valid argument?
Jean Kazez
September 18, 2009
(changed September 18, 2009)
Permalink
The phrase "insensitive to suffering" might mean--(1) "culpably unaware of it" or "unsympathetic to it." Or it might mean (2) "trivializing it" or "giving it too little weight."
If you shoot a rabbit, that's got to cause the rabbit to suffer quite a lot. Surely there's a good chance o... Read more
This question has been given to my year 7 son and he has permission from his teacher to seek help from the web! Any assistance gratefully received. "A wicked year 7 pupil, the self-styled "Logician", was up before the year head on a serious charge of misleading the rest of the year into avoiding homework through clever argument. The head of year promised expulsion from the school, but added the following strange condition that, if on the day of expulsion the Logician signed a statement making one true declaration about his punishment, the expulsion would be reduced to confinement in the Head's study for 10 days. If on the other hand the statement is false, then the sentence will be carried out immediately. The day of expulsion arrives and the Logician, beaming, signs a declaration which is handed to the head of year who reads it in bewilderment. Tearing the document to shreds in his anger he orders that the Logician suffers no punishment whatsoever." What could the Logician have said which resulted in receiving no punishment at all?
Peter Smith
September 17, 2009
(changed September 17, 2009)
Permalink
Another hint (and a rather shorter read!!): the opening pages of To mock a mockingbird and other logic puzzles by Raymond M. Smullyan.
I couldn't possibly recommend looking via Google Books. :-)
Log in to post comments
This question has been given to my year 7 son and he has permission from his teacher to seek help from the web! Any assistance gratefully received. "A wicked year 7 pupil, the self-styled "Logician", was up before the year head on a serious charge of misleading the rest of the year into avoiding homework through clever argument. The head of year promised expulsion from the school, but added the following strange condition that, if on the day of expulsion the Logician signed a statement making one true declaration about his punishment, the expulsion would be reduced to confinement in the Head's study for 10 days. If on the other hand the statement is false, then the sentence will be carried out immediately. The day of expulsion arrives and the Logician, beaming, signs a declaration which is handed to the head of year who reads it in bewilderment. Tearing the document to shreds in his anger he orders that the Logician suffers no punishment whatsoever." What could the Logician have said which resulted in receiving no punishment at all?
Peter Smith
September 17, 2009
(changed September 17, 2009)
Permalink
Another hint (and a rather shorter read!!): the opening pages of To mock a mockingbird and other logic puzzles by Raymond M. Smullyan.
I couldn't possibly recommend looking via Google Books. :-)
Log in to post comments
The love shared between two individuals (romantic love) is often thought of as the most ineffable and sublime of human connections, but I can't help but feel that there is something less than satisfying at its foundations; an element of extreme frivolity. The fact is that love is dependent upon factors and conditions which one may think of as being somewhat superficial. Most conspicuous in my mind is the physical attractiveness of the object of one's love. We consider it to be highly superificial to let our judgement of a person be effected by our estimations of said person's physical appearance, yet this very quality is of extreme importance when it comes to who we fall in love with. Does it in anyway sully the integrity of love that its foundations are so superficial?
Peter Smith
September 17, 2009
(changed September 17, 2009)
Permalink
"But love is blind and lovers cannot see/The pretty follies that themselves commit", as Jessica says in the Merchant of Venice. "But if thy love were ever like to mine/How many actions most ridiculous/Hast thou been drawn to by thy fantasy?" Silvius remarks in As You Like It. Oh yes, love... Read more
I have always been more talented at exposing flaws in reasoning or hypocrisy in actions than in constructing anything to replace what I criticize. Naturally many people are bothered when they're criticized and aggravated beyond that when not presented with an alternative. What is the status of this ability? Should someone hold his silence if he has nothing better to offer, or is just being critical worthy by itself?
Eric Silverman
September 19, 2009
(changed September 19, 2009)
Permalink
It strikes me as very 'Socratic' to expose flaws in reasoning even if you don't have claims of your own to make. However, we should also remember that things didn't end well for Socrates (at least not by conventional measures.... I sometimes joke that Socrates was the first person in h... Read more
Is there any good argument to support the claim that homosexuality is a perfectly valid lifestyle?
Allen Stairs
September 17, 2009
(changed September 17, 2009)
Permalink
I'd suggest reflecting on a different question: is there any good argument to support the claim that it isn't? I ask this because for my own part, I can't think of one. Further, I don't think this is just a failure of imagination on my part.
When I think about the same-sex couples I kn... Read more
I am a male of legal age and am healthy mentally/physically, should I be able to engage in the consumption of pornographic materials with no moral qualms?
Peter Smith
September 17, 2009
(changed September 17, 2009)
Permalink
Suppose you and an enthusiastic partner have fun getting very imaginative with your video camera. Then after the event -- your partner away for a while, and with their encouragement -- you amuse yourself watching the results, and thereby "consume" what are pornographic materials (here ta... Read more
Is there such a thing as a selfless action? Given there's always a self doing the action, surely it's not possible? Even if you appear to the outside world to be acting against your interests, it's always for YOUR reasons and therefore selfish? For example someone gives up all their money and time to a charity, they would do it because they think it's right to do that, therefore they feel better about themselves...OR a mother gives up her kidneys for her child condemning herself to death, it would be because it would hurt HER more to have the child die and not help, than to die herself.
Peter Smith
September 16, 2009
(changed September 16, 2009)
Permalink
Let me recycle the answer I gave to an earlier question.
It is indeed a truism that, when I act, it is as a result of my desires, my intentions, my goals. After all, if my arm moves independently of my desires, e.g. because you want it to move and push it, then we'd hardly say that the mo... Read more
Can two people reason differently? Even when given the exact same premises? I mean ... can using reason EVER lead us to more than one conclusion?
Peter Smith
September 16, 2009
(changed September 16, 2009)
Permalink
Well, yes of course, two incompetent reasoners could reach different conclusions by making different mistakes! So I take it the question is: could two people reason correctly to different conclusions from the same premisses?
But again the answer to that is, trivially, "yes". A given bunch... Read more