Recent Responses
In our society, any modern way of making one's daily life easier is considered an advance. I am only fifteen, so I might not fully understand the importance of technology in our lives yet, but my question stands: If these advances ultimately have a consequence (an example being television, which may provide temporary distraction and entertainment, but in reality just distracts us from doing something more constructive), is it really an advance at all? My mind is in conflict because many of the examples I think of often have many pros as well as many cons. Is that the nature of advancement: with every move forward there is a risk of developing problems? ~Juliet
Douglas Burnham
September 24, 2008
(changed September 24, 2008)
Permalink
Very few things, if any at all, have value in an absolute sense.That is, not value for this or that purpose, or in this or thatcontext, but for any purpose or context. Some of the very fewcandidates that are sometimes suggested are the morally good, thejust, or the beautiful. A techno... Read more
Is this argument valid?: A) The sky is blue. therefore B) 2+2=4 It may not seem that the premise is relevant to the conclusion. But an argument is supposed to be valid if its premises cannot be true without its conclusion being true. B is a necessary truth (we can imagine a world in which the sky is red, but a world in which 2+2=5 is just incoherent). B is always true, therefore B must be true in cases in which A is true. So this must be a valid argument. There's something horribly wrong with this thinking, but I can't figure it out.
Richard Heck
September 23, 2008
(changed September 23, 2008)
Permalink
It may not help very much, but the argument you describe is not (usually considered to be) logically valid. It's true that 2+2 could not have been other then 4, but almost no-one nowadays would suppose that it was logic that guaranteed that fact. So we might say that the argument is "mat... Read more
It is said that language poses a problem in the study of philosophy because, for example in the English language, of the different meanings a single word can have and because there are no words to describe certain concepts, mixed thoughts, mixed emotions, etc. However, some languages are supposed to be better than others (for the purpose of understanding / teaching philosophy) Sanskrit apparently being the best / one of the best. Is this true and is it worthwhile learning Sanskrit for the purpose of greater understanding of philosophy?
Peter Smith
September 23, 2008
(changed September 23, 2008)
Permalink
Suppose that you have a conceptual problem about e.g. your notion of moral responsibility (or justice, or freedom, or causation, or whatever). How could doing your philosophical thinking in Sanskrit terms possibly help?
Either the concepts available in Sanskrit are the same as yours -- in... Read more
Is this argument valid?: A) The sky is blue. therefore B) 2+2=4 It may not seem that the premise is relevant to the conclusion. But an argument is supposed to be valid if its premises cannot be true without its conclusion being true. B is a necessary truth (we can imagine a world in which the sky is red, but a world in which 2+2=5 is just incoherent). B is always true, therefore B must be true in cases in which A is true. So this must be a valid argument. There's something horribly wrong with this thinking, but I can't figure it out.
Richard Heck
September 23, 2008
(changed September 23, 2008)
Permalink
It may not help very much, but the argument you describe is not (usually considered to be) logically valid. It's true that 2+2 could not have been other then 4, but almost no-one nowadays would suppose that it was logic that guaranteed that fact. So we might say that the argument is "mat... Read more
A common moral argument made against sex or sexual relationships between adults and minors is that there will always an imbalance of power between the adult and the minor involved. Because of this, such relationships are said to be exploitative, even if there is informed consent and the minor is not harmed either physically or psychologically by the experience. Assuming that such a scenario is possible - a minor gives informed consent to a sex act or a sexual relationship with an adult, and is not physically or psychologically damaged by what follows - is the imbalance of power between the adult and the minor really enough to render the adult's behaviour morally wrong or exploitative?
Alan Soble
November 1, 2008
(changed November 1, 2008)
Permalink
Lorraine ends with "which is why most people think sexual relationships between minors and adults are exploitive." Yes, but it is also the reason that some philosophers, legal scholars, and feminists think that heterosexual relations are also coerced and exploitative. Men have power, woman hav... Read more
Is there really a Social contract? Many supreme court cases have upheld that the government is not liable to protect you. For example, if a police officer dawdles around while your house is burglarized, he isn't liable to you for not upholding his duty to protect you. How do we consent to government to govern us when it has a monopoly over our area?
Lorraine Besser...
September 23, 2008
(changed September 23, 2008)
Permalink
In thinking about the existence of a social contract, or lack thereof, the first thing we need to do is separate questions about the possible terms of the contract from questions about its existence. You note that courts have denied that the members of the government can always be... Read more
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
Is it entirely altruistic to execute a will, because any property transfer or other consequence of having (or not having) a will would not be experienced until after the testator's death?
Allen Stairs
September 20, 2008
(changed September 20, 2008)
Permalink
Suppose Will writes a will, disinheriting his children out of small-minded spite and leaving all his wealth to Bill, who already has more than enough money and no significant connection with Will. Doesn't sound altruistic to me! And even though Will won't be around to watch his children'... Read more
I would like to ask you if we can define "possibility" (and "impossibility", "necessity" and "contingency") in the following way: If something is true, then it is possible. On the contrary, from something being possible, it does not follow that it is true. If something is necessary, then it is true. On the contrary, from something being true, it does not follow that it is necessary. I am assuming, of course, that we can easily define the four first terms from each other (for example, if something is necessary, then it is not possible that it is not true). Isn't this a good way to define possibility, at least taking "possibility" in its ordinary more or less vague meaning?
Peter Smith
September 20, 2008
(changed September 20, 2008)
Permalink
Consider the schema: "For every p, given Op, it follows that p: but it is not the case that for every p, given p, it follows that Op". For what fillings for O does this come out true?
Certainly if we put Op = it is necessary that p, we get a truth. But equally Op = Jack knows that p wor... Read more
Are there any good philosophical reasons for thinking that time travel is possible?
Allen Stairs
September 20, 2008
(changed September 20, 2008)
Permalink
Yes and no. Let me explain.
Some people think that is flat-out impossible. They appeal, for example, to puzzles like the Grandfather Paradox: if time travel were possible, the argument goes, I would be able to go back to 19xx and kill my Grandfather before he met my Grandmother. This wo... Read more