Recent Responses
While I don't have a firm opinion on the issue, I never understand many pro-life positions that state they are against abortion except in the case of rape or incest. Life is life. These babies are as innocent as others. The situation in which they were conceived should have no bearing on whether they should be allowed to be aborted. It is illogical.
Eric Silverman
September 12, 2009
(changed September 12, 2009)
Permalink
Perhaps, such positions concerning abortion are based on the idea that a developing fetus is very morally valuable, but not equal in moral value to a fully developed human being. Therefore, something like the great emotional pain involved in being forced to carry a child conceived as t... Read more
Is it wrong to subject older drivers to more frequent (or perhaps more stringent) driving tests? Although I don't have any statistics at hand, it seems that we often read about an older driver plowing into a group of bystanders b/c they fell asleep, forgot to take the pills, etc. So why not subject them to annual driving tests? Or annual vision tests?
Eric Silverman
September 12, 2009
(changed September 12, 2009)
Permalink
More frequent tests might be justified IF we have legitimate reason to think that their driving skills may have degenerated and that they present a real danger, but I don't think more stringent tests would be just. Why hold them to a higher standard? Instead, shouldn't we want to ensur... Read more
Moral arguments have long been made in support of theism, but the Euthyphro dilemma has always seemed to be a strong counter. Is there any way a theist can get passed the dilemma without simply biting the bullet and accepting that moral laws are based on the arbitrary whims of God? Sure they could also accept the first horn, but it would seem to cost them there argument that God has to be the source of objective moral values. Basically, I have heard some say that it is a false dilemma -- that there is some other way of resolving it perhaps. Is there any good philosophical reason for making this sort of claim?
Eric Silverman
September 12, 2009
(changed September 12, 2009)
Permalink
One classic theist response to the Euthyphro dilemma is that morality doesn't ultimately come from a contingent or subjective divine will, but from the necessity of the divine nature. Therefore, morality could not be other than it is and is not subjective, but morality's ultimate sourc... 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
At this point I am so familiar with a) The human propensity for religious belief b) The history and basis of the world's major religious belief systems and c) The apathetic functioning of the universe, that intellectually I am unable to adopt the anthropocentric vision of the universe as presented by the monotheistic traditions. However, watching my muslim friend pray and fast during this month of Ramadan, I am struck by how much peace, happiness and purpose her beliefs bring her and contrast it with the emptiness and meaninglessness which I feel. The fissure between our worldviews is a constant source of alienation between us. 1) Would it be ethical for me to attempt to persuade her of the veracity of atheism (regardless of whether or not she is won over to this worldview), despite my knowledge that this may adversely effect her positivity about life? 2) Failing this, should I try to swallow the blue pill of theism and attempt -emotionally rather than intellectually- to force myself into believing it's true? (by adopting the rituals, etc. as proposed by Pascal.)
Jean Kazez
September 12, 2009
(changed September 12, 2009)
Permalink
You seem to want to get closer to your friend by eliminating the difference between your beliefs, but there are other ways to get closer. It sounds like you are attracted to the ritual aspects of her religion. So perhaps you could ask your friend if you can join in celebrating Ramadan in... Read more
My question relates to Plato’s dialogue of Euthyphro; specifically, I am interested in the two alternatives Socrates presents in what is deemed as “good” or virtuous. Socrates points out that if what is good is good because god decrees it, then god’s choice is arbitrary: there is perhaps no distinction between good and evil for god; god simply wills what he does. On the other hand, if god wills what is good because it is good, then morality is in some sense independent of or separate from god; we humans need only find out what is good, which we can do without god or religion. If, however, considering the first of these two options, god were to decree something good (like not committing murder), is this not sufficient to objectify goodness for us? If god decreeing that murder is “bad” is indeed an arbitrary choice for god, does it follow that it is arbitrary for humans?
Peter S. Fosl
September 11, 2009
(changed September 11, 2009)
Permalink
I think I see what you mean. But if I do, then the phrase "arbitrary for humans" is not exactly the way to pose your question. Humans aren't really making the choice in your scenario. So, the choice is neither arbitrary nor non-arbitrary for them. I think you might rather mean something... Read more
A long time ago - Jan 2006 if I'm not mistaken - Alan Soble wrote (http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/875): "Finally, the heart and soul of philosophy is argument, providing reasons for claims, including claims about morality and duties. In the answer to the question above, I cannot find a shred of argument. We should also avoid, that is, pastoral or friendly counseling. Without rigor, philosophy is nothing." That was back in the days when there was routinely more than 1 response to a question. Today's responses seem more and more to be becoming "pastoral or friendly counseling" without rigor. The panelists do not argue with each other - the responses are just accepted. Here's an example: Peter Smith wrote very recently (http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/2823): "For irrationally formed beliefs are not likely to lead to actions which get any of us what we want -- including a decent life, lived well in the knowledge of our all-too-explicable mortality." This statement - simply put out there, with no argument behind it - seems utterly preposterous. Beliefs will make us happy or not based on their content - not how they are formed. In fact, I might even choose to believe something JUST BECAUSE it will make me happy. They say the truth is often ugly and hard to take. Surely not the sort of thing that will make me happy. Of course it depends on what we mean by "happy". But Professor Smith doesn't think it's important to point this out in his friendly and pastoral and dogmatic response. Neither do any of the other panelists. Has the site lost some of its rigor?
Sally Haslanger
September 12, 2009
(changed September 12, 2009)
Permalink
I don't agree with Soble's claim that "without rigor, philosophy is nothing." Philosophy can be a source of insight, a glimpse into a completely different way of thinking about things, a moment of doubt, an invitation to reflection, the introduction of a new concept, and much more.... Read more
A long time ago - Jan 2006 if I'm not mistaken - Alan Soble wrote (http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/875): "Finally, the heart and soul of philosophy is argument, providing reasons for claims, including claims about morality and duties. In the answer to the question above, I cannot find a shred of argument. We should also avoid, that is, pastoral or friendly counseling. Without rigor, philosophy is nothing." That was back in the days when there was routinely more than 1 response to a question. Today's responses seem more and more to be becoming "pastoral or friendly counseling" without rigor. The panelists do not argue with each other - the responses are just accepted. Here's an example: Peter Smith wrote very recently (http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/2823): "For irrationally formed beliefs are not likely to lead to actions which get any of us what we want -- including a decent life, lived well in the knowledge of our all-too-explicable mortality." This statement - simply put out there, with no argument behind it - seems utterly preposterous. Beliefs will make us happy or not based on their content - not how they are formed. In fact, I might even choose to believe something JUST BECAUSE it will make me happy. They say the truth is often ugly and hard to take. Surely not the sort of thing that will make me happy. Of course it depends on what we mean by "happy". But Professor Smith doesn't think it's important to point this out in his friendly and pastoral and dogmatic response. Neither do any of the other panelists. Has the site lost some of its rigor?
Sally Haslanger
September 12, 2009
(changed September 12, 2009)
Permalink
I don't agree with Soble's claim that "without rigor, philosophy is nothing." Philosophy can be a source of insight, a glimpse into a completely different way of thinking about things, a moment of doubt, an invitation to reflection, the introduction of a new concept, and much more.... Read more
A long time ago - Jan 2006 if I'm not mistaken - Alan Soble wrote (http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/875): "Finally, the heart and soul of philosophy is argument, providing reasons for claims, including claims about morality and duties. In the answer to the question above, I cannot find a shred of argument. We should also avoid, that is, pastoral or friendly counseling. Without rigor, philosophy is nothing." That was back in the days when there was routinely more than 1 response to a question. Today's responses seem more and more to be becoming "pastoral or friendly counseling" without rigor. The panelists do not argue with each other - the responses are just accepted. Here's an example: Peter Smith wrote very recently (http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/2823): "For irrationally formed beliefs are not likely to lead to actions which get any of us what we want -- including a decent life, lived well in the knowledge of our all-too-explicable mortality." This statement - simply put out there, with no argument behind it - seems utterly preposterous. Beliefs will make us happy or not based on their content - not how they are formed. In fact, I might even choose to believe something JUST BECAUSE it will make me happy. They say the truth is often ugly and hard to take. Surely not the sort of thing that will make me happy. Of course it depends on what we mean by "happy". But Professor Smith doesn't think it's important to point this out in his friendly and pastoral and dogmatic response. Neither do any of the other panelists. Has the site lost some of its rigor?
Sally Haslanger
September 12, 2009
(changed September 12, 2009)
Permalink
I don't agree with Soble's claim that "without rigor, philosophy is nothing." Philosophy can be a source of insight, a glimpse into a completely different way of thinking about things, a moment of doubt, an invitation to reflection, the introduction of a new concept, and much more.... Read more
Why do philosophers care about answering question on identity or consciousness?
Jennifer Church
September 10, 2009
(changed September 10, 2009)
Permalink
There is one very general reason and two more specific reasons that philosophers are interested in the question of whether consciousness is identical to a particular bodily state.
The general reason is this: we are interested in knowing what the most basic constituents of the world a... Read more