Recent Responses
In a discussion about philosophy as a profession I referred to one of the questions on this site to claim that the division of male and female philosophers is more equal than ever and it's not at all only male philosophers. But when we started thinking about it we could only come up with female philosophers who are doing practical philosophy (e.g. Nussbaum, Noddings, Gutmann, Warnock). So the question arose - are there at least somewhat significant female philosophers in for example theoretical philosophy or history of philosophy that you could name? Are there female philosophers in all the fields of philosophy?
Thomas Pogge
December 12, 2008
(changed December 12, 2008)
Permalink
Yes, there surely are (just look through the list on the right), though it's probably also true that women are better represented in practical philosophy than in philosophy generally. Outside practical philosophy, among the earliest in this country was Ruth Marcus who taught Saul Kripke, a... Read more
From reading these pages I can tell all the contributing philosophers are decent and moral folk - anti-racist, feminist, compassionate, well-meaning, etc. but my question is, why should you be, especially if you hold no truck with an afterlife? Why not act immorally if you can get away with it and avoid jail and it is to your personal benefit? Does not behaving morally presuppose moral absolutes which I thought modern philosophy had done away with? I read an argument where ethical differences were described as being in the same boat only some get seasick and some don't (Alisdair MacIntyre) but again this is presupposing that philosophers all agree everyone should be "good". Why not be bad? Or is it all about tenure? (joke!)
Allen Stairs
December 12, 2008
(changed December 12, 2008)
Permalink
Why not act immorally? How about because it would be wrong?
You seem to be asking for a selfish reason why philosophers (or anyone else) wouldn't act immorally. But it's a mark of the moral that what morality calls for doesn't always suit our selfish purposes.
Maybe we need a little more... Read more
I am a married man of 11 years with two children under 9 years. My wife and I are on the verge of a divorce and are waiting until after the holidays and figuring out the logistics of the house, finaces and child care. Nine months ago I met a younger married woman and since then we have been having an affair. We talk, text, email almost every single day. We see each other once or twice a month sometimes 2-4 days at a time. The emotional, mental and physical realtionship we have is amazing. We are like bestfriends and lean on each other for daily life issues. While my marriage is over her marriage is just starting the process of needing to change things drastically or it is over forever. She has been married for 4 years and has no children so while there is not as much to worry about it is still a very hard decision and she is taking things day by day. There is no doubt that we love each other but we obviously know there are many obstacles. 1) we are married 2) I have two children and she has none (and I have had a vasectomy) 3) I am 12 years older than her 4) we live an hour and a half away from each other. All of these issues have been discussed and other than her marriage we have come up with mutual options. The problem is we really love each other and are so much alike, her counselor has actually mentioned the words "Soul Mate". We have told each other numerous times that we'd leave each other alone so we could make clear decisive decisions in our own personal lives and if it is meant to be then it will happen. The problem is we can't stop talking we always migrate back to each other. I can honestly say she is my bestfriend and cant imagine nothaving her in my life somehow even if it is just as friends. Do I leave her? Do I fight for her? Am I just lonely and find our relationship comforting? I don't want to mess her life up but I want to be happy also.....
Jean Kazez
December 12, 2008
(changed December 12, 2008)
Permalink
If you really want to take a philosophical approach to your situation, then there are all sorts of things to think about--the ethics of divorce, the special responsibilities we have to children, the ethics of having affairs, the nature of romantic love, as opposed to the love we feel for our... Read more
I recently read the following argument on a blog, and I was wondering what the panelists might say about it. It is a well known philosophical principle that one cannot infer normative facts from empirical ones (this is the is-ought problem). But if, as it is often supposed, "ought implies can," then cannot implies ought not ("ought not" in the sense of "not obligatory"). In that case, we can infer normative facts from facts about empirical facts about what people cannot do.
Allen Stairs
December 11, 2008
(changed December 11, 2008)
Permalink
What a fun question!
Suppose we agree that if X is something we ought to do, then X is also something we can do. Suppose further that X is not something we can do. Then as your blogger points out, it follows that X is not something we ougt to do. But that's perfectly consistent with there... Read more
Can a person who was born blind know what "red" looks like? Is there any way you can explain it to him/her so that he/she can perceive it the way we do?
William Rapaport
December 11, 2008
(changed December 11, 2008)
Permalink
There are two different, but related, issues here, on neither of which is there universal agreement among philosophers (but, then again, is there ever?).First, there's "Molyneux's problem": Can a person born blind who later gains sight distinguish a cube from a sphere merely by sight... Read more
I recently read the following argument on a blog, and I was wondering what the panelists might say about it. It is a well known philosophical principle that one cannot infer normative facts from empirical ones (this is the is-ought problem). But if, as it is often supposed, "ought implies can," then cannot implies ought not ("ought not" in the sense of "not obligatory"). In that case, we can infer normative facts from facts about empirical facts about what people cannot do.
Allen Stairs
December 11, 2008
(changed December 11, 2008)
Permalink
What a fun question!
Suppose we agree that if X is something we ought to do, then X is also something we can do. Suppose further that X is not something we can do. Then as your blogger points out, it follows that X is not something we ougt to do. But that's perfectly consistent with there... Read more
I recently read the following argument on a blog, and I was wondering what the panelists might say about it. It is a well known philosophical principle that one cannot infer normative facts from empirical ones (this is the is-ought problem). But if, as it is often supposed, "ought implies can," then cannot implies ought not ("ought not" in the sense of "not obligatory"). In that case, we can infer normative facts from facts about empirical facts about what people cannot do.
Allen Stairs
December 11, 2008
(changed December 11, 2008)
Permalink
What a fun question!
Suppose we agree that if X is something we ought to do, then X is also something we can do. Suppose further that X is not something we can do. Then as your blogger points out, it follows that X is not something we ougt to do. But that's perfectly consistent with there... Read more
Is a child's life more valuable than that of an adults? Let's say you are about to be in a terrible accident (completely figurative) and you only have two options of ways to go. First, you could run into a construction area where there are five construction workers who are oblivious to the situation. Unfortunately, if you go this way all five will die. OR you could turn the wheel, but there is one single child playing which will be in the way and unfortunately die. Do you value the one child's life more than all five workers? Is it morally right to save the child because of its potential life?
Allen Stairs
December 7, 2008
(changed December 7, 2008)
Permalink
Although I can imagine cases where comparing the value of lives might be the way to go, it's not obvious that this is one of them. Heading down a path where we value lives by discounting on the basis of the likely number of remaining years (which is all I see at work here) seems a very dubio... Read more
If a sound argument is a valid deductive (or strong inductive) argument which has all true premises, and an argument which begs the question is an argument which although logically valid (or strong) assumes the truth of the conclusion within its premises, is it possible to have a sound argument which begs the question? If so can you provide some concrete examples.
Peter Smith
December 7, 2008
(changed December 7, 2008)
Permalink
Take, as an extreme case, the argument "The earth is round; hence the earth is round". The inferential move is trivially deductively valid (there is no possible way the premiss can be true and the conclusion false); and the premiss is true. So the argument is sound. But of course, the argumen... Read more
When I help poor people with medicines, food, my own work or with money, I am also contributing to the growth of population in the Earth in the sense that I make it more probable that more people live and have offspring. Population is also a challenge to the life in the Earth and is probably one of the main reasons of poverty, environment destruction and wars. So perhaps making something good at the present could be a bad idea for the future. Is this right?, or is it just a excuse for not helping people in need?
Jean Kazez
December 7, 2008
(changed December 7, 2008)
Permalink
As much as your factual assumptions probably strike you as commonsensical, they are actually problematic. You are assuming that larger families have an especiallynegative impact on the environment. It seems like that must be true, but in fact our impact depends on our lifestyle. For example,... Read more