Recent Responses
What is ethically the difference between a prostitute and a model? They both make a living by selling their body, and the fact that there is sex in one activity seems to me not enough to morally judge a prostitute.
Sally Haslanger
January 22, 2009
(changed January 22, 2009)
Permalink
There are at least two different sorts of moral questions one might ask about prostitution and modeling. On one hand one might ask about the moral status of a particular agent's engaging in modeling or prostitution, and whether one action is morally worse than the other. On the other ha... Read more
To love and to be loved in return is supposedly one of our basic needs. If this is the case then how come ascetics and spiritual people such as priests, monks, nuns, etc. prefer to live solitary lives - some with little or no human contact - and claim that the lives they are living are fulfilled and in some cases claiming that they have transcended many needs and have reached contentment, realization, etc.?
Jean Kazez
January 22, 2009
(changed January 22, 2009)
Permalink
I have long been fascinated by the desert saints, the extreme ascetics of the 4th century. The biggest "star" among them was Simeon Stylites, who stood alone on a pillar for 30 years, ceaselessly bowing in prayer, and enduring every conceivable deprivation. This struck me as the ultimate in s... Read more
If someone doesn't vote, does she then cede (to any extent) the right to complain about the conduct of the subsequently elected official(s)?
Oliver Leaman
January 22, 2009
(changed January 22, 2009)
Permalink
I don't think so, perhaps none of the candidates looked worth voting for, or had the right views. On the other hand, if there is a candidate who you think would do a good job, and has the right ideas, and you do not vote for him or her, if someone else gets in then you have missed an oppo... Read more
If I ask "Why is the sky blue?" is that the same question as "What sufficient conditions for the sky being blue are present in the universe?"?
Allen Stairs
January 17, 2009
(changed January 17, 2009)
Permalink
I'm not entirely sure from your way of putting it exactly what's at issue. I think you're asking whether answering a "why" question is always a matter of providing a sufficient condition for whatever we're "why"ing about. If that's it, I'd say no. One reason is that when we ask a "why?" ques... Read more
is it logically impossible for there to be an infinite regress? A lot of people make an argument and then if it leads to an infinite regress, the argument is taken to be faulty. Something like the first cause argument where the conclusion that an infinite regress occurred is to be avoided. Why is this the case? I don't see how we couldn't have an infinite regress.
Allen Stairs
January 17, 2009
(changed January 17, 2009)
Permalink
There's more than one issue here, I think. It is logically possible -- near as I can tell -- for there to be an infinite regresses of causes. Someone might find it unsatisfying that A is caused by B, which is caused by C, which is caused by D... with no end. BUt there's no contradiction or i... Read more
Although they cannot pretend to have "solved" the problem of induction, scientists have no qualms whatsoever about making inductive inferences in their work. Likewise, I take it that judges and lawyers agree that murder is a terrible crime, even if they are at a loss to explain why one's death is a harm to one. Why is it that we feel totally comfortable in going about the various activities of human life, even when there are (seemingly) gaping holes in the philosophical theories which are supposed to underwrite or justify those activities?
Jonathan Westphal
January 16, 2009
(changed January 16, 2009)
Permalink
It is not obvious to me that we - we philosophers, that is - do feel totally comfortable about the activities of human life. We worry about induction, whether death is an evil because it deprives us of some good, and so on. But there is no absolute requirement to worry, and most people... Read more
Many Americans make the assumption that a person cannot be moral unless he subscribes to a religion. But philosophy is replete with ethical systems other than divine-command theory, some of which have been around for thousands of years. Why haven't teachers of philosophy been able to teach or convince the public that being moral does not necessarily depend upon believing in a divine being?
Sally Haslanger
January 16, 2009
(changed January 16, 2009)
Permalink
I think there are probably two main reasons: (1) Philosophers don't generally speak to or write for the general public, and most are not suited to the role of public figure . Religious leaders (pastors, priests, ministers) have an opportunity every Sunday to speak to a much broader range... Read more
Consider this scenario: I have been dating a woman for four months. Though, for medical reasons, she is currently a considerable distance (over one thousand miles, at the moment) from me at the moment, we see one another very often when she is near. We get along very well and have grown very close; she is quite precious to me. We connect on an intellectual, emotional, and spiritual level (she and I are atheists). In sum, I'm quite lucky to have someone like her. She is a rarity. There is a good chance that I will be transferring to a college roughly seven hundred miles from our current location. If I receive the scholarship required to attend the college, I would be a fool not to accept the offer. However, I would be leaving this person I have come to know, like, and admire so much. Committing to a long-distance relationship with this person would be difficult for both of us. I believe that I'm more than capable of doing this: my sense of honor would prohibit me from engaging in behavior that would taint our relationship in any regard I can think of. Ideally, I would be with this person even after I graduate college and enter graduate study. She wishes to take a similar path. Our summer months would consist of copious time together, and any breaks I would have during the school year would be spent with her, to make up for the time. At present, she is undergoing serious medical treatment on the east coast. I send her letters and poetry (I'm regularly published; this isn't typical college-age poetic expression) on a regular basis; she claims this assists in maintaining her positive attitude toward the treatment, as well as coping with our distance. I wish very deeply to preserve this relationship. Philosophers, lend me your hearts and consciences. How do I accomplish this? I thank everyone for thoughtful input on this all-too-classic situation. This means very much to me. Your thoughts?
Jean Kazez
January 15, 2009
(changed January 15, 2009)
Permalink
Since you are a poet, I hope you will not be offended if I focus a bit on the nuances of the way you tell your story. You speak of "this person I have come to know, like, and admire so much." You say "I'm quite lucky to have someone like her. She is a rarity." You say "she is quite preciou... Read more
My parents unnecessarily refer to people's race when narrating. When I tell them I find this offensive, they laugh it off, and say something like 'It's not like we're members of the KKK', or, 'people should be proud of their race, there's nothing wrong with us mentioning it', or a variation of the typical 'I have friends who are (whatever race it is)'. Of course, when I say "unnecessarily mention", I don't mean that the mentioning doesn't sometimes have a purpose, but it's usually a subtle and/or "unintended" one, like to emphasize the nature of a situation by relying on racial stereotypes. Something like "I was out late at night and I stopped at the gas station, and I was very nervous because there were all these homeless-looking black people around". What's going on with them, and how do I explain in a clear way why this is racist and offensive (they are 'offended' by my suggestion that they are racist or offensive)? As a final resort, my parents will sometimes respond with "well, that wasn't my intention", and that seems to satisfy their consciences. When I tell them that other people find it offensive as well, they say that if people don't know their good intentions, then people can't judge them properly. Thanks!
Miriam Solomon
January 15, 2009
(changed January 15, 2009)
Permalink
How about sharing some of the literature from the social psychology research on stereotypes? This way you won't be arguing back and forth about "intentions" (conscious or unconscious) but instead giving them some robust research on social cognition that shows how racial (and gender and ot... Read more
If I wanted to construct my own philosophy, how would I go about it? What tools would I need? How should I structure the process? What steps would I follow? Think of an ordinary guy - not someone seeking a PhD. Thanks, Mike
William Rapaport
January 15, 2009
(changed January 15, 2009)
Permalink
I'm not sure what you have in mind by "my own philosophy". Do you mean something like "your own philosophy of life"? Or do you mean something like "your own philosophy of (say) mind (or philosophy of language, etc.)".
In the first case, I don't think very many professional philosophe... Read more