Recent Responses
I remember an argument against determinism saying that we are not just able to make free choices but it is actually necessary to. For example if you have the option of cake or salad for dinner and just sit there expecting all the events leading up to this situation to make this decision for you then nothing will happen. One has to actively choose the course of action to take to move from past events to the future. I was wondering if there was any pacticular philosopher who put this forward?
Jasper Reid
April 13, 2009
(changed April 13, 2009)
Permalink
I don't specifically recognise this argument as having been put forward by anyone in particular: but I'm having trouble seeing why it's supposed to be an argument against determinism. If anything, the notion that it is "necessary" to "make free choices" seems to be tending more towards compatibil... Read more
Setting aside worries about quantum mechanics, would it be possible for there to be a plank of wood which is an irrational number (say, pi) of feet in length?
Allen Stairs
April 11, 2009
(changed April 11, 2009)
Permalink
Sure. For one thing, nature doesn't care about our arbitrary units. Suppose we have a plank of wood that''s exactly a foot long. Now I define a new unit: a schfoot. Anything one foot long is exactly pi schfeet long. Is there any mystery about things being pi schfeet long?
Also -- since we're set... Read more
This is a moral question that came to my mind after some reading of law books, but please take it only as a moral question. Suppose that Mary lent me 100 euros. When the time came that I should pay her back, I didn't do it, although I had the money (I preferred to spend it somewhere else). A friend of ours, Pete, knowing what had happened, gave Mary 100 euros saying that he was paying my debt. She accepted the money from him, and Pete told me what he did. What is my moral duty now? Should I give 100 euros to Mary? Do I still owe her 100 euros? Or do I owe Pete 100 euros, although he acted without my consent?
Allen Stairs
April 9, 2009
(changed April 9, 2009)
Permalink
I'm inclined to make a distinction between two things here: the grammar, as it were, of the word "owe" and the right thing to do.
I think a case can be made for saying that since you weren't a party to Pete's deed and didn't consent to it, then you owe Mary 100 euros, in at least one recognizable... Read more
Why is it more moral to eat a pig than it is to eat a retarded human with the intelligence of a pig? What can account for our revulsion at one and not the other aside from the fact that one would-be morsel looks like us and the other doesn't? Let us assume that the retarded human in question has no friends / family who would be traumatized by his being eaten.
Jean Kazez
April 9, 2009
(changed April 9, 2009)
Permalink
I don't think we ought to eat the pig, if we have no more serious reason to do so than liking the taste of pork chops or bacon. I don't think it's necessary to use "retarded humans" as leverage to see that. Liking the taste of pork is just too trivial a reason for taking a life--even a pig's life.... Read more
What is the difference between philosophical idealism, such as the idealism of Kant, and the meaning generally given to being an "idealist?"
Douglas Burnham
October 30, 2012
(changed October 30, 2012)
Permalink
It is perhaps worth pointing out, belatedly, that Kant's idealism (in the first sense) also includes idealism (in the second sense). For example, the ideas of pure reason (the topic of the 'Dialectic' chapters of the Critique of Pure Reason) have a role in our thoughts concerning the natu... Read more
Dred Scot v. Stanford, Supreme Court rules slavery is constitutional. Plessy v. Ferguson, Supreme Court rules segregation is constitutional. Today they’ve allowed the government to spy on its own citizens. They’ve outlawed partial birth abortion. They’ve pursued pro-torture policies. The Supreme Court is appointed, not elected. I was never given any say in WHO gets to be a Justice. While the President is only allowed a max of eight years in office, and legislators have to repeatedly struggle for re-election…the justices serve for life and there’s no way for us to remove them from office. …Considering that they’re the ones who get to decide what the constitution means, (Mauburry v. Madison, Judicial Review) don’t you think this seems a bit out of place in the American government? I mean…they tell us what our constitution means, and there’s nobody to check it. Seems tyrannical, primitive, undemocratic, and out of place in an republic government to me.
Allen Stairs
April 7, 2009
(changed April 7, 2009)
Permalink
Of course, if you vote, you do get at least an indirect say in who's on the court. And after all, your say in a good many matters is only indirect.
In any case, if the question is what the Constitution means, there's something unappetizing about having the check be one that's too directly tied to... Read more
As my class and I were examining the implications of ethical egoism, a dilemma became apparent to me. How could a superogatory act exist to an ethical egoist? If one is only moral by pursuing their best self-interest, how could one go above and beyond that which is already best? (I see that this question could be viewed as a violation of guidelines, but if the honor code is accepted here, I can assure you that this is not a class question. Just personal curiosity.)
Allen Stairs
April 7, 2009
(changed April 7, 2009)
Permalink
What strikes me first is that ethical egoism isn't the real issue here. If any ethical theory claims that we're obliged to maximize something or other, then there's no room left for supererogation. This means that the same point would apply, e.g., to certain forms of utilitarianism. As you are in... Read more
Should circumcising your child be illegal? I certainly think that female circumcision like that practiced in Islam should be, but what about a male child? The operation doesn’t seem too invasive but shouldn’t a young boy be given the right to choose? I mean, it –is- hygienic but it also mitigates sexual pleasure. Maybe I’d prefer to be delighted than clean? It's my body! Do I have to get pregnant before I actually have rights over it? I mean, if a girl who’s under age can’t be forced to have an abortion, why can people slice off the foreskin of my reproductive organs without consulting me? It seems to me that this tradition is only allowed because it's religious-which is absurd. It's also religious for a Muslim to strike his wife with an open palm to the head when she leaves the house without his permission. Some cults practice human sacrifice-we don’t allow these just because they’re religious culture/tradition, why circumcision? Just because a baby can’t speak out?
Oliver Leaman
April 6, 2009
(changed April 6, 2009)
Permalink
You have some rather inaccurate views on Islam. Islam has nothing to say about female circumcision, although it is true that the practice is not uncommon in some Muslim societies. It is also not an Islamic practice to assault wives for leaving the house without permission, although again it does... Read more
I know that agnostics believe truth (such as whether or not god exists) to be unknown. But does this imply that they believe that an absolute truth exists but cannot be obtained by humans? Basically my question is if agnostics think that truth is subjective or objective? Thanks!
Eddy Nahmias
April 6, 2009
(changed April 6, 2009)
Permalink
I think there are (at least) three ways one could be an agnostic about the existence of God, though we often use the word "agnostic" to apply to someone uncommitted about the truth of other propositions, and my categories should apply to many of these types of agnosticism as well, so I will use th... Read more
Human beings have a certain self awareness that nobody seems to fully comprehend. Is it possible that plants and animals have this same cognition but are simply limited in their ability to communicate with the physical world? It seems scientifically unlikely but science is built on physical evidence, and thoughts are not physical. They’re metaphysical. So, we can’t really comprehend their nature, right? Are there some theologians and philosophers who’ve theorized that plants and animals have thoughts just like people?
William Rapaport
April 5, 2009
(changed April 5, 2009)
Permalink
I would like to focus on your last question: Is it possible that plants and animals have thoughts just like people? Let's take animals first. We are animals, so at least some animals have thoughts just like people. Our nearest animal relatives--the primates--probably have thoughts very muc... Read more