Recent Responses
Peter Singer has popularized the term "speiciesism." It's the idea that we are biased or prejudiced towards our own species. Therefore, the argument says, we should have equal consideration for animals. However, this won't apply to animals. The lion will still eat the gazelle, the sharks will eat the dolphins, and any carnivore will eat any animal. I can imagine Singer replying that animals don't have the rational capacity to do ethics. The ideas that Singer presents only applies to us humans. But if this is the case, isn't that a form of speciesism?
Jean Kazez
March 14, 2009
(changed March 14, 2009)
Permalink
Peter Fosl says "it makes no sense to characterize the conduct of a being that's not a moral agent in moral terms." I wonder about this. If a child's not a moral agent yet, can we not say she does something wrong, though not blameworthy? It's hard to say why that wouldn't be the right way to ta... Read more
Would Hitler be a just sovereign according to Hobbes?
Peter S. Fosl
March 13, 2009
(changed March 13, 2009)
Permalink
As a Hobbesian might say about sovereigns, "absolutely" not.
The "justice" of sovereigns is, more seriously, a curious issue in Hobbes and more complicated than it may at first appear. One might be tempted to say that because the Hobbesian sovereign is an "absolute" sovereign, that anything h... Read more
I would like to know more about the (supposed) difference between dictionary and philosophical definitions. There is a free access introduction by Norman Swartz on the Internet. Swartz says that dictionary definitions are "reports of common usages". My problem is that dictionaries (try to) explain what words MEAN in common usages. Even if you accept that there is not more to meaning than usage itself, dictionaries seem to report THEIR UNDERSTANDING of usage, which is something quite different from usage. For instance, when dictionaries quote writers who used some word, they never give information on how READERS reacted to that usage. I think that they assume that those quotations somehow prove by themselves the accuracy of the proposed definitions. On the other side, I suppose that philosophers also rely on usage when they try to define the meaning of a term (if they are not stipulating it). Aren't philosophers reporting their (or arguing for a certain) understanding of a word usage?
Peter S. Fosl
March 13, 2009
(changed March 13, 2009)
Permalink
I think you have a real point here. Standard dictionary definitions don't simply "report" usage. Both philosophical and standard dictionary definitions "explain" (as you put it) or "interpret" (as I might put it) the meanings of words. And both the authors of standard dictionaries and philos... Read more
it seems that an entire 'philosophical system' (for lack of a better phrase) is built around the epistemological idea that I cannot escape my own consciousness (i.e. the argument from illusion). It is sometimes difficult for me, however, to take seriously the suggestion that I cannot prove that I'm not dreaming. I feel that I know that Descartes is quite right (I could be dreaming and I cannot PROVE that I'm not). However, on some very very important level, I do know that, in fact, I'm not dreaming even given the argument from illusion. Therefore, it's quite difficult for me to take the suggestion seriously. Could I be taking this all too seriously or considering it of much more import than is necessary?
Peter Smith
March 12, 2009
(changed March 12, 2009)
Permalink
It's worth saying something first about Descartes (as it wasn't his view that he couldn't prove he wasn't dreaming).
Descartes is troubled that, as he sees it, the then dominant systematic story of the world is in deep error, and is getting in the way of the growth of the revolutionary new scie... Read more
Re: a third state. Sophists seem to be concerned with two things: being and nonbeing. Mathematics is based on this very same concept (the law of excluded middle): p or Non-p. What about a third state? How could we construct a logical system that would have a third state? I was told, and told again that the Law of excluded middle works fine and we should be content. Why not explore a system with more than 2 states, why not 3 or more than 3 states? I look forward to hearing from you. Ben V.
Peter Smith
March 12, 2009
(changed March 12, 2009)
Permalink
There is in fact a tradition of 'constructivist' mathematics which does not endorse the law of excluded middle. Very roughly, suppose you think that mathematical truth consists in the possibility of a constructing a proof. Then there is no reason to suppose that, inevitably, either P or not-P --... Read more
I live in Ireland where it is obligatory for students to learn the Irish language while in both primary and secondary education (for a period of 13 / 14 years) The reason for this obligation being that the Irish language is part of our heritage / our national identity. My question is should we be obligated to our heritage / national identity and if yes to what degree?
Douglas Burnham
March 12, 2009
(changed March 12, 2009)
Permalink
What a fine question! But a very difficult one.
In a nutshell, I'm inclined to defend the thesis there are wideareas of experience that cannot be understood to be possible if weconsider the self as in some way detachable from its culturalcontext. There aren't many philosophers who even raise... Read more
I'm in a rather unique conundrum. After much reading, listening and reflection I've concluded that there is no source of moral good or evil beyond that which serves mankind's survival. That is, one's loyalty to country and family are only meaningful in as much as they can be rationalized as serving this ultimate purpose. The result is that I now find myself at odds with what most people here in the USA and most of the world consider to be the foundation of stability -- that is religion. It's not that I'm an atheist and belief there is no God -- or even that one cannot know whether God exists. I consider myself to be an agnostic, which I define as having no belief on the matter but as having an open mind about it. Unfortunately I've seen more credible evidence for ancient astronauts than for a God. Both are intriguing notions but I can't base moral decisions on them. This leaves me with the problem of feeling quite separate from everyone I know and love. I'm aware of the historical role of religion as a kind of social glue that helps people feel part of a community. I'm also aware that it frequently can turn one community against another. To put it as plainly as possible, I think I've found the truth that I sought but I'm left isolated and unwilling to reveal the source of my separateness because I worry about the effect it would have on those I care about. I think my arguments are good enough that I might convince my brothers of this and the result is they end up arguing with their wives and getting divorced. Or I might cast doubt in the life of the kindly old lady down the road who loves to go to church and socialize with her friends? What good would I have done in revealing the truth when the result is counter to what I define as the moral good? Am I condemned to a life of hypocrisy? I finally understand why Socrates was right to drink the hemlock, but I'm forced to reconsider what he said about the unexamined life not being worth living. And I don't want to repeat his mistake. Thanks. dgp
Allen Stairs
March 12, 2009
(changed March 12, 2009)
Permalink
You've put your conclusion by saying that morality is entirely a matter of what promotes human survival, but that, I'd suggest, isn't really the issue. I'm assuming you might be open to the idea that rampant cruelty to animals is wrong, whether or not it harms the chances for human survival. But... Read more
Peter Singer has popularized the term "speiciesism." It's the idea that we are biased or prejudiced towards our own species. Therefore, the argument says, we should have equal consideration for animals. However, this won't apply to animals. The lion will still eat the gazelle, the sharks will eat the dolphins, and any carnivore will eat any animal. I can imagine Singer replying that animals don't have the rational capacity to do ethics. The ideas that Singer presents only applies to us humans. But if this is the case, isn't that a form of speciesism?
Jean Kazez
March 14, 2009
(changed March 14, 2009)
Permalink
Peter Fosl says "it makes no sense to characterize the conduct of a being that's not a moral agent in moral terms." I wonder about this. If a child's not a moral agent yet, can we not say she does something wrong, though not blameworthy? It's hard to say why that wouldn't be the right way to ta... Read more
Imagine that imediately before the happy ending of a film the good guy says to the bad guy: "You should have killed me when you could." I assume that this doesn't mean "you had the moral duty to kill me when you could." But what does it exactly mean then?!
Mitch Green
March 12, 2009
(changed March 12, 2009)
Permalink
Thanks for your question. I agree that it's unlikely that the remark concerns the bad guy's moral duty. In lieu of a fuller description of the case, my guess about a reasonable gloss of that remark would be: it would have been in the bad guy's *interest* to kill him when he had the chance.
No... Read more
Imagine that imediately before the happy ending of a film the good guy says to the bad guy: "You should have killed me when you could." I assume that this doesn't mean "you had the moral duty to kill me when you could." But what does it exactly mean then?!
Mitch Green
March 12, 2009
(changed March 12, 2009)
Permalink
Thanks for your question. I agree that it's unlikely that the remark concerns the bad guy's moral duty. In lieu of a fuller description of the case, my guess about a reasonable gloss of that remark would be: it would have been in the bad guy's *interest* to kill him when he had the chance.
No... Read more