Recent Responses
Is it unethical to work in intelligence, as say, a spy, where one's job might involve lying to others, listening to others' conversations, and in general, misleading people?
Thomas Pogge
June 28, 2009
(changed June 28, 2009)
Permalink
Such work is surely often unethical or downright wrong -- for the reasons you suggest and also for the additional reason that such work may well be used by others to commit great crimes (e.g., to single out for torturous interrogation French citizens suspected of having ties to the Résistance). Bu... Read more
Do you think every person has a moral obligation to work at the best paying job they can attain, live off as little as they can manage, and donate the rest to the most efficient charity they can find?
Peter S. Fosl
June 26, 2009
(changed June 26, 2009)
Permalink
Given the way many in the wealthy parts of the world live, this is a compelling question. I think, however, that as posed the answer must be "no." For one thing, the best paying jobs may sometimes contribute more bads than goods to the world. For example, in some circumstances criminal activit... Read more
According to Karl Popper, a hypothesis is scientific if it can be observationally falsified, not, if it can be verified. One instance not in accordance with a supposed law refutes the law, but many instances in conformity with the law still do not prove it. Accepting this falsification test, we may remark that the idea of the divine existence either could, or could not, be falsified by a conceivable way of observation. If it could not, then science in no position to test theism. Please comment. Thanks
Peter Smith
July 2, 2009
(changed July 2, 2009)
Permalink
I'm not as confident as Peter Fosl about the testability issue: perhaps we need to know a bit more about what counts as "the theistic hypothesis".
After all, a lot of theistic hypotheses look perfectly testable by ordinary scientific standards. Take, for example, the claim that Zeus exists. I take it... Read more
Many people believe that it is inappropriate to impose one's religious beliefs on others. A principal reason for this belief is simply the observation that not everyone shares the same religion (and many are not religious at all). But mightn't a zealot simply say that, while he recognizes that many people disagree with him, he happens to be extremely confident that they are wrong? So I guess my question is this: In the endorsement of religious toleration, the separation of church and state, etc. is it implicit that religious people don't hold their religious beliefs very strongly?
Peter S. Fosl
June 26, 2009
(changed June 26, 2009)
Permalink
No and yes. Historically, the idea of toleration developed along side streams of philosophical scrutiny of religious belief that suggested, rightly I think, that there's just not very good reason for zealous commitment to religious beliefs. So, while a zealot may, as you describe it, be exceedi... Read more
I have come across a dilemma, I could not find the question on the site presently so I hope it has not been answered yet. If an atom is the smallest piece of matter that we are aware of, doesn't some form of matter have to make up an atom? And whatever the form of matter that makes up an atom, would have to be made up of some other form of matter and that matter would have to be made up of a kind of matter as well, and on and on forever. Where does that stop? How can a human being ever comprehend something like this? Thank you.
Peter S. Fosl
June 26, 2009
(changed June 26, 2009)
Permalink
This is a wonderfully knotty question that has occupied philosophers at least since Zeno of Elea in the 5th century BCE. One way of interpreting Zeno on this is to say that the problem shows that space is illusory. David Hume later, like the atomists ('atom' meaning uncuttable) seems to have th... Read more
Most people oppose cruelty to animals. But, I have often heard people say things like 'killing is a part of life', or that our methods of killing are generally less cruel than in nature. Some have even asked whether we are obliged to mitigate such naturally occurring cruelty, if we are obliged to reduce our own. I don't think these 'arguments' are well-reasoned. My sense is that our capacity to understand the suffering that our actions cause, and consider alternatives, confers greater responsibility, making our indifference to cruelty and suffering more troublesome. Is there a more elegant and thorough way of addressing all this?
Jean Kazez
June 25, 2009
(changed June 25, 2009)
Permalink
Sometimes the argument you allude to is put like this: animals kill animals, so why can't we? I've heard many people say this to justify eating chickens, pigs, lambs and the like, and that's just strange, if you think about it. Somehow because a chicken and a tiger are both "animals"--that is, no... Read more
Most people oppose cruelty to animals. But, I have often heard people say things like 'killing is a part of life', or that our methods of killing are generally less cruel than in nature. Some have even asked whether we are obliged to mitigate such naturally occurring cruelty, if we are obliged to reduce our own. I don't think these 'arguments' are well-reasoned. My sense is that our capacity to understand the suffering that our actions cause, and consider alternatives, confers greater responsibility, making our indifference to cruelty and suffering more troublesome. Is there a more elegant and thorough way of addressing all this?
Jean Kazez
June 25, 2009
(changed June 25, 2009)
Permalink
Sometimes the argument you allude to is put like this: animals kill animals, so why can't we? I've heard many people say this to justify eating chickens, pigs, lambs and the like, and that's just strange, if you think about it. Somehow because a chicken and a tiger are both "animals"--that is, no... Read more
Students in my school are currently voting for a Student Representative, and I am one of the nominees. After reading all nominees' manifestos, I have come to conclude that I above all others seem the best person for the role. We have been told to vote for whom we think would be best, and I believe this is me. There is no rule against voting for yourself, however I do worry that this is in some way morally wrong. My concerns are whether it is okay (as I am voting for the person I genuinely believe to be the best equipped, as is the purpose of a vote), or whether this is simply my way of justifying my own subconcious bias and need to satisfy my own ambition - the status and benefits of getting the position. Also, I believe I would not still vote for myself if the votes were not anonymous. Is there any well-known moral stance on this issue?
Lisa Cassidy
June 25, 2009
(changed June 25, 2009)
Permalink
Congratulations both on your nomination and on your pangs on conscience - the latter is too rarely seen among more experienced politicians!However, I am happy to set your mind at rest. Voting for oneself in an election poses no moral hazards that I can see. (I would change my mind about this if... Read more
Well, during philosophy earlier this afternoon our class came upon the statement 'I do exist.' The majority of the class believed this was knowledge rather than an opinion. However I thought perhaps it could be an opinion, yet my teacher told me it had to be knowledge because we think therefore we must exist. I was wondering if anyone could come up with an argument that supports the idea that I do not exist. Any answers will be appreciated.
Allen Stairs
June 25, 2009
(changed June 25, 2009)
Permalink
I could come up with an argument that you don't exist, but it would be harder for you to. Descartes' point is that even in doubting that I exist, I seem to presuppose that I actually do. Descartes claimed that in any moment when I reflect on it, I know for sure that I exist.
That said, this shows... Read more
How did things get their names? Like, why is a book called "book" instead of something like "oober-doober"? Is it possible that a book's name REALLY IS "oober-doober" and we are using the wrong word? Noah L. Age 8
Peter Smith
June 25, 2009
(changed June 25, 2009)
Permalink
Hello Noah!
Right back from the early ancient Greek philosophers, people have wondered about questions like yours. What things are due to the nature of the world? What things are due to decisions by people? It's a good sort of question.
For example, it seems to be a law of nature that heavy things... Read more