Recent Responses
Is the statement "it is wrong to torture innocent people for fun", logically necessary in the same sense as "2+4=6"? Or could there (in principle) be a universe that functions according to completely different moral laws?
Allen Stairs
September 29, 2008
(changed September 29, 2008)
Permalink
I'd like to suggest a rather different take. Your question makes most sense on the assumption that there can be objective moral truths; if there can't, then no universe "functions" in accord with any moral laws. So let's assume, at least for the moment, that there are such things as obje... Read more
Throughout my life I have been, at one time or another, a believer in God, an agnostic and an atheist. I am amazed at the strength of other people's faith, especially at the faith of people who have taken up a new religion and fervently hold on to and defend their new beliefs for the rest of their lives. My question is how are people so convinced that their chosen religion is right over all the others. It seems impossible that a person can believe in a religion simply because he or she wants to - there must be some logic behind their reasoning - but I cannot understand it. Can you explain or is this one for psychologists?
Andrew N. Carpenter
September 29, 2008
(changed September 29, 2008)
Permalink
In his magnificent recent book, A Secular Age, the Canadian social philosopher Charles Taylor addresses exactly why it is that many North American and Western Europeans find themselves able to view religious belief as a choice that one can make on rational or other grounds.
Tayl... Read more
What is the best age to become a parent? I am 27 years old, married, and have no desire to have kids anytime soon. I am aware that age is a factor though, so am I just being selfish?
Miriam Solomon
September 29, 2008
(changed September 29, 2008)
Permalink
Your question about "best age to become a parent" seems to be asking about what is in the best interests of the child. A comprehensive ethical assessment of this question may and should include the interests of the parents (as persons, their interests are worthy of moral consideration... Read more
My husband critised me for holding on to my opinion despite persuasive opposing views from others in our discussion group; his point being that, as a general rule, the opinion held by the majority is more likely to be right than the opinion held by the minority. He continued to say that if he was in similar circumstances he would begin to doubt his own certainty and concede that the majority must be right. Although I see some merit in his point in some situations I would never concede on something on which I was certain, regardless of pressure, unless I was convinced by facts I hadn't originally considered, etc. Two questions: Am I just being stubborn and how does one determine when we are simply being stubborn as opposed to being justifiably strong-willed?
Mitch Green
September 25, 2008
(changed September 25, 2008)
Permalink
Thanks for your question. It contains two very different sub-questions:
1. Is the opinion held by the majority more likely to be right than that held by the minority?
2. Is one justified in holding onto an opinion in spite of persuasive counter-arguments to the contrary.
I should... Read more
A few things here. First, would someone like Kurt Gödel be considered a philosopher of math, a logician, or a mathematician? Maybe all three (or something else not listed)? And what are the differences between the three? Thanks.
Peter Smith
September 25, 2008
(changed September 25, 2008)
Permalink
A philosopher of mathematics is interested in questions like: what are numbers? what kind of necessity to arithmetical truths have? how do we know the basic laws of arithmetic are true? what about sets -- do they really exist over an abover their members? is there a universe of sets? ther... Read more
I'm a person living in a muslim country. There are lots of problems/discussions between religious and non-religious people about the limits of freedom. For example, some religious people say that they feel offended when someone nearby drinks a alcoholic drink. On the other hand the non-religious people say that it is their freedom to drink alcoholic drinks. There are many other cases of this type, that is, one say that they get offended (generally the religious ones) and the other say that it is their freedom to do such and such. My question is how should we think about such issues? Are there general principles about limits of freedom that we can use to solve such cases? Also, can you suggest introductory reading material on this issue? Thank you. Ahmet
Peter S. Fosl
September 25, 2008
(changed September 25, 2008)
Permalink
This is a terribly and increasingly important issue, isn't it. Luckily, there has been quite a lot of work done on the topic. Two general principles to consider are these: (1) With regard to personal conduct like food, drink, sex, ornament, dress, etc., one should be at liberty to do... Read more
Throughout my life I have been, at one time or another, a believer in God, an agnostic and an atheist. I am amazed at the strength of other people's faith, especially at the faith of people who have taken up a new religion and fervently hold on to and defend their new beliefs for the rest of their lives. My question is how are people so convinced that their chosen religion is right over all the others. It seems impossible that a person can believe in a religion simply because he or she wants to - there must be some logic behind their reasoning - but I cannot understand it. Can you explain or is this one for psychologists?
Andrew N. Carpenter
September 29, 2008
(changed September 29, 2008)
Permalink
In his magnificent recent book, A Secular Age, the Canadian social philosopher Charles Taylor addresses exactly why it is that many North American and Western Europeans find themselves able to view religious belief as a choice that one can make on rational or other grounds.
Tayl... Read more
My question concerns analyticity. I'm a Danish undergraduate student of classics, so I don't have any formal education in philosophy. Anyway, here goes: How do you determine whether or not a proposition is analytic? I believe that the traditional definition is something like this: for a proposition to be analytic the predicate has to be contained in the subject (in the sense that the truth of the proposition can be determined purely on the basis of the semantics of the concepts used and of an understanding of the logical form of the proposition). But this does not seem to be enough. Consider this example: "Wolves live in packs". This would normally qualify as a synthetic proposition, but why exactly? Imagine that a person sitting in her favourite armchair uses her semantic mastery of the concept of wolves and determines the truth of the proposition without lifting a finger. Would that make the proposition "analytic". There seems to be something wrong here. One could say that every proposition that is not a member of the group of propositions sufficient to identify unequivocally the subject in question, does not qualify as a synthetic proposition. And since "living in packs" is not a member of the group of propositions sufficient to identify unequivocally the subject "wolves", it does not count as an analytic proposition. Is there some sense in this, or should I look at "analyticity" in another way?
Mitch Green
September 25, 2008
(changed September 25, 2008)
Permalink
Thanks for your excellent question. You're right to be dissatisfied with the "containment" characterization of analyticity. The reason is that containment is a topological or set-theoretic idea, and it's hard to know how to cash it out for the case of language. After all, subjects and... Read more
Suppose a defense lawyer strongly suspects (to the point that he would be willing to bet a large amount of money on it) that his client has committed the crime he charged with. Would it be right or wrong for him to encourage the jury to deliver a "not guilty" verdict?
Allen Stairs
September 25, 2008
(changed September 25, 2008)
Permalink
At least in the USA, the premise of the criminal justice system is that the burden is on the state to establish guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." And there are various reasons why we might want to stick to that standard. It's not a good thing when a guilty person goes free, but it's al... Read more
I have question about the ethics of life writing. What can I (or any other author for that matter) write in an autobiographical work? My life and my autobiography belong to me, so I should be able to decide what I reveal and how, but since they are so entwined with so many other lives, it seems as my autonomy is in conflict with the autonomies of the people in my life and my autobiography. For example: my girlfriend and I used to have a blog together (it’s closed now since we broke up some time ago) where we would write about very intimate things concerning our relationship and feelings and so on. We used nicknames to conceal our identity, so of all of the people who read the blog, only a handful of very close friends knew who were behind it. Although the blog is no longer available online, I have all the posts on my computer. It’s fairly obvious to me that I ought not to show any posts written by her to anyone, let alone reveal her identify to someone. But it’s not that obvious that I ought not to show posts written by me to someone. On one hand those posts have been written by me and I should be able to share them with whom I like. On the other hand many of those posts describe very intimate things about my girlfriend and sharing those would feel kind of like telling a secret that has been entrusted to you. What is the ethical way of dealing with situations like this, especially in this day and age where anyone can become a published author via the Web.
Douglas Burnham
September 24, 2008
(changed September 24, 2008)
Permalink
A fascinating set of questions. Let me start by distinguishing atleast two: 1. the issue of 'entwined' lives and their relation toindividual autonomy. 2. The implications of this for 'ownership' ofautobiographies.
The first of these is only a problem if we start with theassumption tha... Read more