Recent Responses
I have a question about Descartes' response in Med. VI to the dreaming argument. It seems to me that his knowledge that he is not dreaming any set of beliefs is based upon the knowledge that his current experiences are consistent with reality, which relies upon the knowledge that he is not dreaming his set of beliefs about reality. Would it be accurate to accuse the response of circularity?
Jasper Reid
October 16, 2008
(changed October 16, 2008)
Permalink
The argument of the Meditations goes as follows: first, Descartes establishes his own existence as a thinking thing; then, purely by considering the content of his thoughts, he establishes the existence of God; then, by reflecting on the nature of God and discovering that He is not a deceiver... Read more
I think that a lot of our common intuitions about punishment require that pure retribution be considered as one of the goals thereof. It is easy to conceive of scenarios in which punishment does not act (1) as a deterrent to crime or (2) to relieve the suffering of any injured parties. Often it seems that one of the main reasons we have to punish someone is simply our conviction that he somehow "deserves" to suffer. I'm sure that most people don't see this as problematic. Yet I wonder in particular how a utilitarian would address the question of retribution, since it is not obvious (at least to me) just what the utility of retribution is.
Thomas Pogge
October 12, 2008
(changed October 12, 2008)
Permalink
I agree that standard utilitarians would find it hard to justify retribution as such, that is, without appeal to such further effects as you mention: deterrence and satisfaction to injured parties. But I do not agree that this leaves many punishments without a utilitarian justification. The... Read more
Having just read Dawkins's The God Delusion I was appalled to learn how reviled atheists are in America. In Europe a person's stance (including politician's) on religion is largely irrelevant unless they draw attention to it. What is going on in America? What should skeptics and atheist philosophers do there to point out that atheism is a reasoned and logical viewpoint that doesn't presuppose immorality, etc.? It beggars belief that all presidential aspirants have to (in some cases as Dawkins remarks) probably pretend to be Christians in order to have any chance of being elected. I know of the Atheist's Wager, acceptance of which seems braver to me than blindly accepting the religious promises of heaven as dictated by those who brought you up. And what place do 'faith-based initiatives' have in an ostensibly secular government where church and state are separate under the constitution?
Richard Heck
October 11, 2008
(changed October 11, 2008)
Permalink
The clarification is welcome, but the reason for my remark was simply that I was putting these two remarks together: (i) "I think that an avowed atheist would have absolutely no hope ofelection to President or likely to any major office in any (or almostany) state, regardless of his or her o... Read more
If we move through time, then what is movement? That is to say how is movement, or any change for that matter, possible outside of the context of time?
Andrew N. Carpenter
October 11, 2008
(changed October 11, 2008)
Permalink
One answer to your question is that there may be multiple "orders of time" and, in particular, there may exist an order of time that is separate from the one we normally experience and within which events can occur.Thus, for example, in Western Europe around and in the centuries befor... Read more
Having just read Dawkins's The God Delusion I was appalled to learn how reviled atheists are in America. In Europe a person's stance (including politician's) on religion is largely irrelevant unless they draw attention to it. What is going on in America? What should skeptics and atheist philosophers do there to point out that atheism is a reasoned and logical viewpoint that doesn't presuppose immorality, etc.? It beggars belief that all presidential aspirants have to (in some cases as Dawkins remarks) probably pretend to be Christians in order to have any chance of being elected. I know of the Atheist's Wager, acceptance of which seems braver to me than blindly accepting the religious promises of heaven as dictated by those who brought you up. And what place do 'faith-based initiatives' have in an ostensibly secular government where church and state are separate under the constitution?
Richard Heck
October 11, 2008
(changed October 11, 2008)
Permalink
The clarification is welcome, but the reason for my remark was simply that I was putting these two remarks together: (i) "I think that an avowed atheist would have absolutely no hope ofelection to President or likely to any major office in any (or almostany) state, regardless of his or her o... Read more
Does the morality of the universe depend on the presence of moral beings to "judge" it? Like the question of whether the tree falling in the forest makes any sound if there is no sentient being present to hear it.... (I'm not entirely sure if I've remembered that right!!!) So, would good and evil exist at all in a world without human beings?
Jennifer Church
October 9, 2008
(changed October 9, 2008)
Permalink
Philosophers usually think of morality as applying to the way that people treat other people -- not the way that humans treat things like cups and chairs, and not the way that non-human animals treat each other. The way that we treat a cup may be better or worse, but it can't be moral or... Read more
Having just read Dawkins's The God Delusion I was appalled to learn how reviled atheists are in America. In Europe a person's stance (including politician's) on religion is largely irrelevant unless they draw attention to it. What is going on in America? What should skeptics and atheist philosophers do there to point out that atheism is a reasoned and logical viewpoint that doesn't presuppose immorality, etc.? It beggars belief that all presidential aspirants have to (in some cases as Dawkins remarks) probably pretend to be Christians in order to have any chance of being elected. I know of the Atheist's Wager, acceptance of which seems braver to me than blindly accepting the religious promises of heaven as dictated by those who brought you up. And what place do 'faith-based initiatives' have in an ostensibly secular government where church and state are separate under the constitution?
Richard Heck
October 11, 2008
(changed October 11, 2008)
Permalink
The clarification is welcome, but the reason for my remark was simply that I was putting these two remarks together: (i) "I think that an avowed atheist would have absolutely no hope ofelection to President or likely to any major office in any (or almostany) state, regardless of his or her o... Read more
What duties (if any) does a person have in rejecting a nomination to elected office if that person does not feel qualified for the requirements of the office? Or, in a democracy, is there no (strict) requirement for competence before holding office? Sure, the easy answer is that the voters will establish competence requirements, but this seems incomplete considering voters (in many cases) seem to be swayed by issues not relevant to the requirements of the office. I guess there is another question nested in the first: What sort of qualifications can be reasonably expected for officials in a democracy (i.e., age and nationality seem to be accepted, but what of education, experience, temperament, etc...)? Thank you.
Allen Stairs
October 9, 2008
(changed October 9, 2008)
Permalink
It's hard to give a good general answer, but let's start with an analogy. I've been a faculty member for many years and I have some administrative experience. However, if someone came to me and said "Allen, the Dean is stepping down, and we need you to fill in as Interim Dean of Arts and Human... Read more
If we move through time, then what is movement? That is to say how is movement, or any change for that matter, possible outside of the context of time?
Andrew N. Carpenter
October 11, 2008
(changed October 11, 2008)
Permalink
One answer to your question is that there may be multiple "orders of time" and, in particular, there may exist an order of time that is separate from the one we normally experience and within which events can occur.Thus, for example, in Western Europe around and in the centuries befor... Read more
Is it always worse to be unfaithful by action (having an affair) or by thought (fantasising about a person)? An affair can last for a while without the adulterer's partner ever even knowing about it and when it's over the adulterer may, in some cases, have a more favourable regard for his/her spouse. However fantasising about a person can go on indefinitely and the spouse is then always compared unfavourably with the love object - and the person fantasising is perpetuating an "in love" state which will keep him/her somewhat detached from reality. What are your views?
Amy Kind
October 22, 2008
(changed October 22, 2008)
Permalink
Following up on what Prof. Solomon says, you might want some way to assess each case on its merits. So you might think about what makes an affair wrong. Is it the betrayal of the spouse, or the effects that the affair has on the spouse? Some people might think: if my spouse had an affair, th... Read more