Recent Responses
Science claims that the cells in our bodies are alive, but the fundamental parts of the cell such as molecules and atoms are not alive. Does that mean our bodies are only partly alive?
Science also says that some
Stephen Maitzen
September 15, 2016
(changed September 15, 2016)
Permalink
Science also says that some of the cells in our bodies are dead. That already implies that our bodies are only partly alive, but only in the sense that not every part of our bodies is alive.
If every part of a living thing must be alive, then the fact that a... Read more
Recently, I noticed about sorites problem. I thought that problem is serious to all of philosophical endeavor, but my friend told me that is problematic when you assume some kind of platonism. Is he right? Or is it equally problematic when we assume nominalism?
I think that the sorites
Stephen Maitzen
September 15, 2016
(changed September 15, 2016)
Permalink
I think that the sorites paradox is a problem even for nominalists.
Suppose we line up 101 North American men by height, starting with the shortest man (who's 125 cm tall) and ending with the tallest man (who's 225 cm tall). Let's also suppose that each man exc... Read more
If I have a choice between two candidates, neither of whom I like, is the morally responsible thing to not vote, because I then wouldn't be causally implicated in either of them coming into office?
That's certainly one
Allen Stairs
September 8, 2016
(changed September 8, 2016)
Permalink
That's certainly one acceptable response. Others might include voting for a third candidate if one is available, writing in a candidate's name if the ballot allows, or, in extremis, spoiling the ballot as a protest.
There's another issue worth raising. One might as... Read more
Hi! I was looking at images from Abu Ghraib today, and I was wondering -- is there any sense to thinking that the mere act of looking at the prisoners is wrong, or even in some way harms them? Many of the prisoners are not identifiable from the photos, so I'm not sure that my worry is about reputational damage. The same might apply to other sorts of images, and even text. For instance: "Fapgate", where nude images of celebrities were distributed without their consent. Or what about if I find a person's diary on a train and read it? Is there any sense to the feeling that I am violating someone, though that person and I will always be strangers to each other? To add one more twist: what if the author of the diary, or a prisoner depicted in one of the photos, is now dead? Can I still be said to harm them?
Im going to set aside the
Michael Cholbi
September 8, 2016
(changed September 8, 2016)
Permalink
Im going to set aside the last part of your question, whether it matters to the morality of looking at the images in question that those depicted are (sometimes) dead. That raises a collection of issues that it would take some time to address (a number of respons... Read more
My question involves the word "same" apropos to identity vs. comparison, especially to the base case of a particular induction proof. I was trying to find the flaw in the induction for: "P = All horses are the same color. Base Case: P(1) = One horse is the same color as itself. Induction: We have n+1 horses. Take any one away, and the rest will be the same (because of P(n)). Since it didn't matter which we took away, all horses must be the same." I posit that the flaw in this proof isn't simply the lack of "sameness" overlap in the P(2) instance, but in the choice of base case and use of the word "same." I say that there needs to be a comparison (i.e., 2 or more unique objects) in the base case to use the word "same" as it is in "P". If I say Horse A is the same color as Horse A, and you say Horse A is the same color as Horse B, are we really using the word "same" in the same sense? If not, doesn't it follow that it's better not to use them interchangeably in an induction proof such as the one above? If so, am I just naively over analyzing something that's actually very obvious and elementary? Thank you!!
Wait! You have proved the
Jonathan Westphal
September 8, 2016
(changed September 8, 2016)
Permalink
Wait! You have proved the base clause all right, but where is your proof of the inductive step? Is it that if you remove the inductive steps, you are left with a true base step, which is true? But this is obviously not a good deductive proof. I think too you m... Read more
Should the impossibility of reaching a definite answer for many of the questions that philosophy asks realistically lead one to stop asking , or even considering, these type of questions? Ultimately, is asking a waste of time and energy?
Philosophers are routinely
Stephen Maitzen
September 7, 2016
(changed September 7, 2016)
Permalink
Philosophers are routinely asked these questions, whereas (say) physicists never are. I'm not sure that's fair. If the task of physics is to discover the fundamental laws governing the physical world, then there's no guarantee that physics can accomplish that t... Read more
People often die in car accidents due to their own negligence or incompetence. For example, a cyclist may be fatally struck by a car as a result of failing to stop at a red light. In cases like this, I have often seen observers express the following sentiment: "The cyclist should be denounced. He was the one at fault, and because of his failure the driver must live with the burden of having killed someone. If anything, it was the driver who was wronged by the cyclist, even though the former killed the latter." This seems to me puzzling attitude, and I was wondering if the panel had anything to say about it.
An interesting case! My
Allen Stairs
September 2, 2016
(changed September 2, 2016)
Permalink
An interesting case! My reaction is that the attitude you describe isn't incoherent or confused, but isn't noble or wise either.
Just to review: in the case you've described, the cyclist is negligent, ends up dead because of that, and someone (the driver) who did... Read more
It seems to me that a lot of basic philosophy is about definitions of abstract words. So, Plato might have asked what courage or love are, Enlightenment philosophers might have been interested in what freedom is, more modern philosophers might inquire what science is. I guess I'd like to ask a two-part question. The first is what the difference is between the sort of definition a philosopher might give and the sort of definition a lexicographer might give. What are philosophers doing that lexicographers aren't? The second is, if it's fair to say that philosophers are interested in defining abstract words, well, is the task inevitably culturally and temporally specific? I mean, does the Latin word "pulchritudo" really mean the same thing as the English word "beauty"? Does the Greek "aletheia" really mean the same thing as "truth"? And couldn't the meaning of a word like "freedom" change over time?
Think about water. When a
Allen Stairs
September 1, 2016
(changed September 1, 2016)
Permalink
Think about water. When a lexicographer asks what the word "water" means, s/he is asking how the word is used. It's an empirical question about people's actual linguistic behavior. If it turned out that enough people use the word "water" to refer to vodka, then "vo... Read more
When discussing new laws that give government agencies greater powers in relation to surveillance, people sometimes claim, "If you haven't done anything wrong, then you shouldn't have anything to hide." This doesn't sit right with me, but I find my disquiet difficult to explain. It's not that I'm worried about bad governments potentially abusing such powers; it's more that I feel some sort of violation has happened. In a very different context, when people reveal their inmost thoughts on social media, or even post nude photographs of themselves, it's sometimes said, "This is who I am. Why should I hide anything or keep anything secret?" Again, I'd suggest that the value of some sort of privacy or private space is being questioned. There's a sort of implicit challenge as to why anyone should be private at all. I was wondering whether philosophers have any good reasons why some sort of secret, private space should be valued in itself. If one is not a criminal, is there any reason not to live one's life completely open?
As you suggest, the 'you
Michael Cholbi
September 1, 2016
(changed September 1, 2016)
Permalink
As you suggest, the 'you haven't done anything wrong, so why should you be worried about surveillance?' stance doesn't seem to capture the privacy-based objections to being watched, observed, etc. That stance appears to assume that the only reason we might ca... Read more
Mustn't there be a counterexample to any statement that's a generalisation, because if there weren't a counterexample the statement would be a matter of fact and not a generalisation?
It may help to distinguish
Stephen Maitzen
September 1, 2016
(changed September 1, 2016)
Permalink
It may help to distinguish between universal generalizations and statistical generalizations. An example of a universal generalization is "All swans are white," and a statistical generalization might be "Swans tend to be white." As it happens, that universal ge... Read more