Recent Responses
I believe that the taking of human life in all instances (abortion, euthanasia, suicide, self-defence, manslaughter, murder, etc.) is wrong; however under certain conditions I would take life under all these instances and in doing so I would accept that I am wrong and answerable to the Law but I would hope that the Law would be merciful (e.g., in a case of euthanasia where the person involved was terminally ill, in severe pain and no hope of recovery). Is my attitude wrong?
David Brink
August 21, 2008
(changed August 21, 2008)
Permalink
It's coherent to say that your action was wrong but that you should be shown mercy and not punished. But I wonder if this is the best way to represent your view. Sometimes we might say something was wrong, meaning only that there was a moral reason against it, but not necessarily a decisive r... Read more
A friend argues that if a perfect God creates something different from himself, then it's necessarily imperfect, because, if perfect, it would still be God. So the universe implicitly entails evil and our universe is, if not exactly the best of all worlds, the least evil of all worlds. But then I ask: "Why did God create anything at all?" and my friend replies it's not his responsibility to answer that question and we end in deadlock. Is there any way to break the deadlock?
Allen Stairs
August 25, 2008
(changed August 25, 2008)
Permalink
A further thought here: I think part of the issue has to do with the phrase "something perfect." Assuming it makes sense, to talk, for example, about a perfect piccolo (keys work flawlessly, correctly placed to produce notes that are in tune, etc...) Then I'd certainly agree with Oliver: nothi... Read more
I have a question concerning the gender of words that exist in many languages, except in English. What does the presence of grammatical gender in a language say about the mentality of its speakers? A different question is whether the features of a language reflect the characteristics of the societies where it's spoken in a largely unconscious and involuntary way. (Modern) Persian, spoken in Iran and Afghanistan, doesn't have the feature of grammatical gender (anymore), just as English. Many say that the languages that do have grammatical genders are sexist, and that they help to perpetuate the conviction that sex is a tremendously important matter in all areas. For Marilyn Frye, this is a key factor in perpetuating male dominance: male dominance requires the belief that men and women are importantly different from each other, so anything that contributes to the impression that sex differences are important is therefore a contributor to male dominance. Societies whose languages do not have grammatical genders are no less sexist than the others that do have grammatical genders. Have many languages marginalized women more than the English language? Why can't we gender-neutralize words? Does sexist language matter? Thanks.
Louise Antony
September 24, 2009
(changed September 24, 2009)
Permalink
As a matter of fact, there are some psychologists and psycholinguists investigating the very question you ask. Lera Boroditsky, at Stanford University, has data that suggest that speakers of languages that use broad gender marking do associate more feminine characteristics with things... Read more
I am a Chinese undergraduate girl living in China and planning to have further study abroad. For preparation, these days I try to know ABC about Western philosophy, but I find it hard to start. Considering my major is in the field of engineering, I am not sure whether or not Western philosophy will play an important role in my future life in the US or Europe. Could you tell me how much Plato's or Socrates' thoughts have influenced Western people's way of thinking, and how the philosophers' thoughts have exerted an significant influence on various aspects of Western people's life? Could you please enlighten me what should I prepare pertaining to philosophy before going abroad? Thank you ever so much. =)
Thomas Pogge
August 15, 2008
(changed August 15, 2008)
Permalink
There is a great influence, of course. But it is subtle and impossible to understand simply by reading ancient philosophers. It makes more sense for you to prepare yourself by reading contemporary works that give you a sense of how citizens in the affluent Western countries think about themsel... Read more
Recently, a politician announced that (unlike his opponent) he supported a major government initiative that would bring money and jobs to my area. If the initiative passed, my life would almost certainly improve. The rest of the country, however, would be worse off, because the plan is mostly pork spending that wastes money. At first I thought I should vote for the candidate who opposes the initiative, because that would help the most people. But on the other hand, our political system seems to be designed expecting citizens to vote in their interest. Our congress, for instance, is elected on a state-by-state basis, implying that each congressperson should have a special concern for their state. What would be the responsible way to vote?
Thomas Pogge
August 15, 2008
(changed August 15, 2008)
Permalink
I don't think geographical representation implies what you say it does. Its rationale could just as easily be that the legislature -- when deliberating about justice and the common good for all Americans -- should be fully informed of how its decisions would affect people in different parts of... Read more
Hello. I think that I have a personality disorder called the Schizoid Personality disorder. I am actually fairly certain of this. If this is the case, I have a question that pertains to ethics. I am wondering if it is immoral in some sense to cloister oneself from the world and to spend one's time primarily by oneself. I would consider myself of a high intellect with much college behind me and I enjoy intellectual pursuits and the life of the mind very much. Though I currently have some close friends (from high school) and socialize several times a week, I can see a day in which I would like to be mostly alone. I envision a day, after several more years of graduate school, when I could leave America and get lost in Europe and break all ties with former friends, and (as I am a Schizoid) my family--whom I feel nothing for and do not enjoy being around. I am an atheist and a Darwinian and believe this is the only life I am going to get and I would like to, despite what contemporary social standards state, live it on my own terms. I am somewhat an iconoclast. Moreover, I would, for a long period (perhaps from age 30-40) like to move to a place where prostitution is legal; this is because I do not want to be entirely celibate and it would accord me with opportunities for consensual and yet non-intimate relations (I feel unhappy when intimate situations arise) and yet I could be entirely unconnected to others on any substantive level. Essentially, I want to be in the world and yet really in my own world. I sort of hate people. I have misanthropic, cynical feelings. Mostly, though, I am unhappy when around others and labor to "fall" into myself. I think it is generally the way that my brain is configured that makes me not feel any need to be with other people--not that I have felt rejected or cannot participate with others. I am just lacking the mental configuration that would cause me to desire the company of other people. I am not a jerk, if I sound like one; I am just someone who understands that this is the only life I am going to get and who wants to spend it alone and distanced from the world. I do feel at times that the world is extremely overwhelming. I have never wanted kids, and the thought of a spouse always around me (as a Schizoid) seems unbearable. Do you, then, think that this somewhat strange lifestyle would be immoral; do you think it is a character flaw to reject participation in the world? Thanks.
Thomas Pogge
August 15, 2008
(changed August 15, 2008)
Permalink
I can think of two general ways in which someone might find your plan somewhat immoral. First, one might be concerned about the pain it might cause to your family, your parents and siblings, perhaps. Here you will obviously want to mitigate pain, explain to them how you feel, and so on. They k... Read more
Most people believe that a belief is true if it corresponds to a fact. But facts and ideas are very different things. They exist in completely separate realms. How can they "correspond" to each other?
Jonathan Westphal
August 15, 2008
(changed August 15, 2008)
Permalink
You write that facts and ideas are very different things. (You also contrast beliefs and facts to make the same point, so perhaps you believe that beliefs are ideas.) From this you infer a difficulty about the possibility of ideas and facts corresponding to one another. 'Facts and ideas a... Read more
I once read that "moral properties are causally inert". In other words, the fact that something is morally good or right doesn't make anything (or at least anything physical) happen or cease to happen. Only the fact that somebody BELIEVES that something is good or right does. My question is whether you think that this is specific to moral properties. For instance, aesthetical properties (like beauty) seem to be as inert as moral ones. And the properties of being money, of winning a game or of having an A as a school grade seem to me equally inert. Aren't they?
Allen Stairs
August 14, 2008
(changed August 14, 2008)
Permalink
Let's start with money, which is also a good thing to end up with. Whether the piece of paper in my pocket is money isn't something that depends just on the intrinsic properties of the piece of paper itself. As someone once put it, the fact that something is money is an "institutional property... Read more
Logic textbooks which offer a system of natural deduction containing a so called "rule of replacement" restrict this rule to logically equivalent formulae. Only these can replace each other wherever they occur. I have often wondered why this is so. It seems to me that, having e.g. p<=>q and p&r as lines in a proof (as premisses, say), would allow one to soundly infer q&r directly from them by replacement of p by q in p&r, without requiring that p and r be logically equivalent. In less formal situations, for example, when solving a math problem, I find myself (and others) doing this all the time. I've searched the internet for this, but couldn't find any answer so far. Most grateful in advance for a reply.
Richard Heck
August 14, 2008
(changed August 14, 2008)
Permalink
There's a need for some care here. In classical logic, one certainly does have the rule: From A <==> B and ...A..., infer ...B..., in the sense that the former things will always imply the latter thing, and also in the sense that, in any complete system, applications of this rule could a... Read more
Omnivores are often defined as opportunistic feeders, in other words; they eat what they can get their hands on. As vegetarian sources of food are generally plentiful in the developed world; are there any valid reasons for eating meat? I’m finding it extremely difficult to think of any rational reasons for eating meat in my own life since I’m entirely able to survive on vegetarian options whilst still getting the nutrients I require. The strongest ‘weak’ argument I’ve came up with is it is ‘natural’ for us to eat meat – our bodies are able, and ready, to digest it. Like I said; this argument doesn’t win me over; there are many ‘natural’ things in this world that aren’t necessary for one to live a good life (and many more to contradict living one). For example; cancer is entirely natural – it is observed in the natural world. Likewise; the process of rape as a means of propagating has been observed in the animal kingdom (i.e. in chimpanzees and even dolphins), but I would never use the ‘natural’ argument for defending rape or denying a cancer sufferer treatment. My poor argument relies on ‘natural’ being defined as: “occurring in, or being produced by nature”. Returning to my original question: what rational arguments, if they exist at all, can be used to validate my carnivorous side?
Peter Smith
August 13, 2008
(changed August 13, 2008)
Permalink
Suppose someone asks: "What rational arguments can be used to validate drinking wine?"
You can survive without wine whilst still getting the nutrients you require (well, so they tell me). But so what? Wine is a great pleasure to the palate, it makes you feel deliciously intoxicated, it is a de... Read more