Recent Responses
There's no moral obligation on us to bring into existence lives that are good; on the other hand, if we know a life will be bad, perhaps we are under an obligation not to create it. So, perhaps, not knowing whether the lives we introduce will be good or bad, but knowing there's a significant risk they'll be bad, are we morally obliged not to risk introducing such bad lives?
Jean Kazez
April 30, 2009
(changed April 30, 2009)
Permalink
If you haven't been reading David Benatar's book Better Never To Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence, then you might want to read it, because his argument is very much like yours.
Perhaps we ought to say that there actually is some obligation to bring into existence lives that are good.... Read more
I am looking for books on ethics written in a popular style; understandable for people reading on a high school level. Can you advise?
Lisa Cassidy
April 28, 2009
(changed April 28, 2009)
Permalink
I have a couple of suggestions for you. The first is to look into books that pair philosophical analysis with contemporary culture. Both Open Court Press and Wiley-Blackwell have book series of this nature (called "Popular Culture and Philosophy" and "Philosophy for Everyone," respectively) .... Read more
I ask this in regards to (what I perceive to be) the paradoxical nature of time and its origins. Two things seem particularly troubling here: A) How could time have had a beginning? Isn't the concept of a beginning only meaningful when examined from a frame in time? B) If time did not have a beginning, wouldn't we have traversed an infinite period of time in order to get to the present moment? Isn't that as inherently impossible as, say, eating an infinite amount of cottage cheese? One thing is apparent: time exists! From this I can gather there is some flaw in my reasoning. I suspect it resides in B, though I cannot seem to articulate the precise reason why, but I am open to the possibility that A is somehow fallacious as well. Or, perhaps, both A and B are false. Anyway, you guys run a great site! Thanks for answering (if you indeed choose to do so).
Jasper Reid
April 28, 2009
(changed April 28, 2009)
Permalink
I already addressed your second concern in response to a previous question on this site. I'd invite you to take a look at my answer there.
As to the first concern, when we speculate about a possible beginning to time, we are doing so from a frame in time. We start at the present, and we conceptua... Read more
What kind of scientific evidence, if any, could prove that free-will does not exist?
Eddy Nahmias
April 23, 2009
(changed April 23, 2009)
Permalink
This is an interesting question, in fact, so interesting that I am writing a whole book about it (Rediscovering Free Will). As Miriam says, much depends on how you define free will. Let's not begin with the problematic assumption that free will requires a non-natural power to transcend the cau... Read more
What kind of scientific evidence, if any, could prove that free-will does not exist?
Eddy Nahmias
April 23, 2009
(changed April 23, 2009)
Permalink
This is an interesting question, in fact, so interesting that I am writing a whole book about it (Rediscovering Free Will). As Miriam says, much depends on how you define free will. Let's not begin with the problematic assumption that free will requires a non-natural power to transcend the cau... Read more
I know that Gödel shows that there are true claims S that are not provable. The epistemic question is "How do we know S is true". Is it "true" in the same way that axioms of Euclid's geometry are true?
Peter Smith
April 22, 2009
(changed April 22, 2009)
Permalink
No, Gödel does not show that there are true claims S that are not provable.
He shows rather that, given a consistent formal theory T which contains enough arithmetic, then there will be a true arithmetical "Gödel sentence" G which is not provable in T. But that Gödel sentence G, though it can't... Read more
I have been reading a little about realism and anti-realism which has left me thinking that my metaphysical beliefs put me in both camps? Let me explain. I'm inclined to accept the correspondence theory of truth which, I think, puts me in the realism camp as to my ontology. However, while I believe there exists a world external to mind, I do not think we come to know that world directly. Our experience and knowledge of the world is mediated by the brain which uses conceptual frameworks to make sense of all the raw data we are bombarded with daily. So it would seem, ontologically I'm a realist but epistemologically I'm an anti-realist. Does this make any sense?
Peter Smith
April 19, 2009
(changed April 19, 2009)
Permalink
Let's make two initial comments to muddy the waters!
1) Accepting some version of a correspondence theory of truth -- e.g. accepting that a true proposition is made true by the existence of a corresponding fact -- doesn't ipso fact make you a realist in your ontology. It will obviously depend wha... Read more
If quantum mechanics or other fundamental theories of physics have it that small physical entities which make up everything else do not behave deterministically, does that indeterminism inherited by all other larger entities, whether those are molecules, gases, instantiated computer programs, and people? In general, does indetermism on one "lower" physical level imply indetermism on a "higher" one?
Allen Stairs
April 18, 2009
(changed April 18, 2009)
Permalink
The answer to the general question is that indeterminism at the "lower" level doesn't have to mean indeterminism at "higher" levels. Here's an abstract way to think about it. Suppose some theory has a set of possible states -- call it S -- and a strict deterministic law governing how the states... Read more
A friend of mine recently gave me a copy of an official report released by the United States Senate Subcommittee. Apparently they invited medical and scientific officials from all across the world to discuss the scientific status of a fetus. There wasn’t any debate. All agreed that human life began at some point during the initial conception except one who said he didn’t know. Here’s a quote from the report. “Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.” Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981 I did some further snooping on the internet and found that the medical and scientific community is in universal agreement on the fact that human life begins upon conception. This leads me to a few questions. Does scientific life necessarily coincide with moral life? In a secular society do we have room to make judgments based on moral perspective when science is out of sync with our observation? I mean, Obama promise to ‘put science in its rightful place.’ But, if we do that doesn’t that mean we have to overturn Roe v. Wade? I mean, I know Roe v. Wade didn’t expressly say that a fetus wasn’t human. But if it is human-and scientifically it apparently is-then why do the laws concerning born children not apply? Is it any less constitutional to legally require a woman to carry a child for 8-9 months than it is to force a parent to labor for eighteen years to provide for a born child? Thank you for you time.
Peter Smith
April 18, 2009
(changed April 18, 2009)
Permalink
Let's agree that, from the moment of conception, we have a living thing -- and, if the parents are human, this living thing belongs to no other species than homo sapiens. So what? That fact doesn't in itself determine the moral status of the product of conception.
Here's one possible view: as th... Read more
Is it animal abuse to spay/neuter an animal? Most people justify spay/neutering by pointing out that if we sterilize animals, there will be fewer needier animals. But if that's true, why not forcibly sterilize people in third world countries (at least in areas with population problems)?
Jean Kazez
April 17, 2009
(changed April 17, 2009)
Permalink
I agree with the you that spaying/neutering raises difficult moral questions. On its face, it's abusive, since sterilization probably lowers quality of life for animals. So why do animal protection groups like the Humane Society encourage it? Because sterilizing animals lowers the number of unw... Read more