Recent Responses
Hi there! I wanted to re-open a question that was posted a couple of years ago, by probing a bit further. This is what "Mario" asked [http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/1142]: "Does the individual consciousness depend on the actual atoms or only on the configuration of the atoms? Suppose we have mastered cryo-freezing and atom-manipulation technology. We can freeze and unfreeze people at will. We freeze Sarah. We replace Sarah's atoms one by one. With all atoms replaced, we wake her up. Is it the "same" Sarah? (the same to herself, not just to us)." I'd like to add that I recently heard that over a few years, every single cell in our bodies is replaced, except for a few memory cells that last much longer. But given during our lives, we WILL eventually be composed of different atoms to those with which we started, and that it is generally agreed that we nevertheless remain the same "people"/"consciousnesses" throughout, where does that leave us? If it means that it must be structure/organization of matter that solely determines "me"/"my consciousness"...what if someone created a copy of me with exactly the same structure? It seems I can't be two people at once, so if it's not actual atoms that determines "me", and it's not the configuration of them, what on earth am "I"?? :) Thanks, Holly M.
Thomas Pogge
December 21, 2008
(changed December 21, 2008)
Permalink
The problem you are raising here is actually very nicely discussed in Derek Parfit's famous book Reasons and Persons (Part III). Parfit asks you to imagine tele-transportation, where your body is carefully scanned (and destroyed in the process), the data e-mailed to some destination, and a... Read more
Suppose Big Company Inc. supports a controversial Initiative X, endorsing the legislation and donating millions to PACs in favor of it. I, for one, hate Initiative X, and have taking personal action (eg. protests, letters to my senator) to try and kill it. Would I be justified to boycott Big Company's products, in order to spite them for supporting Initiative X? Most people seem to think that's okay, or even commendable. But let's turn the situation around. Suppose I apply for a job at Big Company. Although I am the most qualified candidate, Big Company has heard of my actions to undermine Initiative X. They decide not to hire me, in order to spite me for my political actions. In this case, I seem to have a good reason to get angry, or even sue. From a moral perspective, are these two situations different? Or is the supposed discrepancy simply a result of our tendency to empathize with the weak (me), as opposed to the strong (Big Company).
Thomas Pogge
December 21, 2008
(changed December 21, 2008)
Permalink
I am not sure that the company would be legally required to hire you under the circumstances you outline. In many jurisdictions it may well be able to argue that -- qualified though you may be -- you are less suitable than other candidates because you are less likely to be loyal to the com... Read more
Is human cloning immoral? Or can it help more society rather than do it harm?
Allen Stairs
December 20, 2008
(changed December 20, 2008)
Permalink
It's hard to give an all-purpose answer. But notice: the way you've posed the problem suggests that if cloning does more harm than good, it would be morally acceptable. People who think right and wrong are a matter of consequences would agree; people with a different way of thinking about... Read more
It's a bit difficult to understand the difference between 'Being' and 'Existence'. From what I know, bring is the state or quality of existing. But to me this state or quality sounds extremely ghostly. Could you please elaborate? Thanks Shamik C. New Delhi India
Allen Stairs
December 18, 2008
(changed December 18, 2008)
Permalink
What fun! And indeed, it turns out that Giovanna picked my birthday to show me the error of my ways! :-)
As it turns out, however, I don't think we actually disagree about anything. Giovanna has pointed out, in effect, that folks in her tradition use these terms to mark out a distinction (... Read more
What is forgiveness? If I forgive someone for some misdeed, does that mean they are no longer obligated to correct that deed? Or is forgiveness simply an attitude change, when one chooses not to remain angry? Also when I say "I forgive you", is that a performative speech act? Or is it possible to forgive someone without saying it (or contrarily, to say you forgive someone when not really forgiving them).
Jennifer Church
December 18, 2008
(changed December 18, 2008)
Permalink
The topic of forgiveness has recently received quite a bit of philosophical attention, which means quite a bit of philosophical disagreement as well. In particular: Charles Griswold, Pamela Hieronymi, Jacques Derrida have written in different ways about this topic. There seems to be a... Read more
Is there any more scientific basis for the justification of a belief in Feng Shui, any more than the major religions have their belief in God? My Chinese girlfriend is a firm believer and practitioner. I'm a lapsed Christian and see no more "proof" in Feng Shui than I do in the God that Jews, Christians and Muslims believe in. Thanks.
Allen Stairs
December 17, 2008
(changed December 17, 2008)
Permalink
What I know about Feng Shui could be written on a very small scroll. But that said...
There's at least this interesting difference between the two cases. Feng Shui claims that certain ways of arranging stuff tend to breed various sorts of good or bad fortune. If that's true, it's the sort... Read more
I just saw an advertisement on a website, the advertisement features a poor African child who is on the verge of starvation. Is it wrong for me to think that a child of his standards should die, because if everyone would have the chance to live to their 70-80s that our world would over populate? I sound like an very immoral person, but if the end result is world overpopulation, then I would want to sacrifice the unlucky ones, for the sake of all others.
Thomas Pogge
December 17, 2008
(changed December 17, 2008)
Permalink
Suppose it is true that, if everyone had the chance to live to their 70-80s, our world would become very overpopulated. In this case, the best way to bring relief would be to get rid of an appropriate number of affluent people who, through their much greater ecological footprint, are impos... Read more
It's a bit difficult to understand the difference between 'Being' and 'Existence'. From what I know, bring is the state or quality of existing. But to me this state or quality sounds extremely ghostly. Could you please elaborate? Thanks Shamik C. New Delhi India
Allen Stairs
December 18, 2008
(changed December 18, 2008)
Permalink
What fun! And indeed, it turns out that Giovanna picked my birthday to show me the error of my ways! :-)
As it turns out, however, I don't think we actually disagree about anything. Giovanna has pointed out, in effect, that folks in her tradition use these terms to mark out a distinction (... Read more
We recently learned about racial profiling in my social studies class. While I disagree that it is unethical (and plain old incorrect) to assume that all people of a certain race are criminals, there did seem to be some logic behind the idea that I didn't want to bring up in class. I am not a racist and am in fact involved in closing the achievement gap in my school district, so although this question is definitely not PC, I am hoping I can ask it here without being judged: If statistics show that for whatever unfair reason (maybe because of discrimination), a greater percentage of people of race A become alcoholics or grow up in poverty or something, and statistics also show that alcoholics or people who grow up in poverty are more likely to commit crimes, then isn't it only logical to conclude that a randomly-chosen person of race A is more likely to be a criminal than a randomly-chosen person of race B? I acknowledge that there is definitely some circular logic going on here, and saying "he's of race A, so let's go after him and see if he's a criminal" will only further the discrimination that caused the disadvantage these people are at in the first place. However, the point my teacher was making was that racial profiling is 100% racist and 0% truthful/logical. Isn't he kind of incorrect? (It could be the case that the races that were being profiled negatively were not the ones that had higher rates of alcoholism, in which case racial profiling would be incorrect and I guess racist, but I'm pretty sure that's not the point my teacher was making). I came across a similar issue when I was looking for car insurance (I recently got my driver's license). Where I live, the price of car insurance is lower for girls my age than for boys, because girls get in fewer accidents, apparently. If the state believes that this ("gender profiling", in a way) is ethical, then why isn't racial profiling? Is it because one is less PC than the other, or are these two scenarios actually not analogous? Sorry this question is so multi-faceted and huge (and horrifyingly politically incorrect). Thanks so much to anyone who answers!!
Thomas Pogge
December 13, 2008
(changed December 13, 2008)
Permalink
First of all, I think it's good you bring this up. Better to discuss such matters openly than to pretend they don't exist.
One should be clearer, perhaps, about the step from belief to action. Surely many things correlate with race, gender, or religion; and we may notice these correlations... Read more
In my work there are clear inequalities between colleagues for choosing the holidays period and for choosing morning or evening shift. The more senior a worker is the more privileges he has. Let’s suppose that one of the senior workers decides voluntarily to give some of his privileges to another worker even though other senior workers probably will not do the same. Should the junior worker feel and express gratitude for this action? Or, as the decision could be considered as a matter of justice and more equality, it is what everybody should do, and so gratitude is not necessary, and the senior worker should not be expecting gratitude.
Thomas Pogge
December 13, 2008
(changed December 13, 2008)
Permalink
One relevant factor here is whether the seniority privileges you describe are unjust. If they are long-standing rules fairly administered, then they may not be. Unlike privileges based on race or gender or religion, such seniority privileges do treat everyone equally over time. Everyone is... Read more