Recent Responses
If I am an atheist, should I try (while remaining civil) to convince religious people that they are wrong?
Gabriel Segal
April 29, 2008
(changed April 29, 2008)
Permalink
Quite so. I think it depends in part on who the religious person is. If there is almost no chance that you will change their views then there is no reason why you should spend your time and energy on the matter. And I expect this applies to a lot of people. If there is a decent chance that you... Read more
At school we had a discussion about our motives to do certain things. The concrete example was Antigone. Antigone buries the corpse of her brother, which is against the law, and risks her own life by doing so. Finally she gets caught and is sentenced to death, but before that can happen, she kills herself. At first I thought this was the greatest love one can prove to another. But a classmate said everything we do has an egoistic motive. Antigone didn't bury her brother to give his soul rest, but to give herself a good feeling. My question is: What we experience as love, is it really caring about someone or just trying to feel better?
Peter Smith
April 25, 2008
(changed April 25, 2008)
Permalink
It is worth commenting further on that idea that "everything we do has an egoistic motive". We need to distinguish here a truism from a falsehood.
The truism is that, when I act, it is as a result of my desires, my intentions, my goals. After all, if my arm moves independently of my desires, e.g.... Read more
Why do most philosophers insist that ethical principles should be universal? Can't I have my own private ethical code, my own set of principles, which I don't expect anyone else to follow, although I would not be against the fact that others follow it, that is, I'm not trying to be a free-rider or harm anyone. One of my principles might be: don't preach.
Peter Markie
April 25, 2008
(changed April 25, 2008)
Permalink
Let’s consider what it is for ethical principles to be universal. One way of understanding the claim that ethical principles are universal is to take it as the claim that the correct moral principles apply to all of us. Here’s one way to appreciate this claim. Suppose that a particular act, A... Read more
Are there any reasons to think that any one language is better suited to reasoning than another? Are there ways in which we could change our language in order to make reasoning easier, or more effective, or to make us less prone to common reasoning errors?
Peter Smith
April 25, 2008
(changed April 25, 2008)
Permalink
Well, it is certainly true that introducing unambiguous, very carefully defined, agreed terminology and having a perspicuous notation can make reasoning easier and make us less prone to common reasoning errors. To take the obvious example, mathematicians aren't just being awkward when they use a... Read more
My teacher said all violence ever does is create more violence, and that even if you use violence for good you're doing nothing long term. What do you think? Larry, 16, NJ
Gabriel Segal
April 25, 2008
(changed April 25, 2008)
Permalink
I think that that is a very good rule of thumb. Humans often react to violence by retaliating. Hence many of the absurd feuds and wars that go on. Of course, one can think up exceptions. But they are rare.
Log in to post comments
When philosophers pose theories of language, are they implicitly dealing with just human language, or are their theories meant to address all possible languages?
Gabriel Segal
April 25, 2008
(changed April 25, 2008)
Permalink
Philosophers of language explicitly deal both with issues concerning all possible languages and with issues concerning just human languages. They usually make clear which of the two they are discussing at the time.
Log in to post comments
When confronted with so many varied competing philosophical theories in the realms of truth, mind, free will, identity, etc, I find myself lacking the abilities (and the time) needed in order to properly evaluate them and to decide upon my own personal opinions. As such, I end up being a bit of a fence sitter on many subjects, sometimes left with residual beliefs I can’t really justify nor feel able to explain how I got them. This doesn’t bother me much as I’m sure I’m not on my own in this, and it doesn’t really affect my day to day decisions. But in other areas, such as religion, politics and ethics, it would seem I have to stand somewhere. With religion I’ve done lots of thinking and reading and feel fairly comfortable with my position, deciding long ago that time could be better spent thinking about other things (I’m not persuaded by the theistic arguments I’ve encountered and I could spend an eternity exploring all religions). But with politics and ethics I feel a responsibility to hold an opinion but really struggle. I feel this particularly strongly with ethics, being a parent I’m aware I’m passing on my values, and the consequences of my decisions more often than not affect people I care about. Most of the people I’ve discussed morality and ethics with (mainly on the internet) it would seem are relativists or subjectivists and I can’t really refute their arguments. But at the same time wonder then on what do they base decisions with broad consequences. If it’s as arbitrary as they suggest then surely ethical reasoning can’t really get going. And we have to face this stuff whether we like it or not. Is it enough to say that I base my moral decision making on a sort of basic concern for the welfare of others? What would be your advice to those of us overwhelmed by the number and diversity of these ideas with very limited time and abilities on how far to probe into these issues? I’d bet there are a huge proportion of people who’ve never really considered the foundations of their particular moral beliefs, but should they? Do they even need to in order to live well? Apologies for the long question(s), and thanks for the opportunity to ask.
Kalynne Pudner
April 24, 2008
(changed April 24, 2008)
Permalink
Whether people need to examine the foundations of their moral beliefs in order to live well depends on what we mean by living well, doesn't it? Socrates said the unexamined life was not worth living, so presumably he'd answer your question with a resounding YES. I suspect many philosophers w... Read more
According to Plato's Theory of Forms, the things we perceive in the material world are mere "copies" of the Forms that exist in the World of Ideas. I want to ask this: These Forms include only abstract ideas such as beauty, justice and the like, or they also include tangible objects like trees etc.? if so, then, do they also include bad things like guns, atomic bombs and all the other objects that contribute to people's suffering? Thank you very much.
Nicholas D. Smith
April 24, 2008
(changed April 24, 2008)
Permalink
I think the only honest answer to your question one can give is this: Despite all efforts by scholars to determine the outlines and limits of "Plato's Theory of Forms," these continue to elude us, precisely because Plato never articulates them in a way that settles the matter. In some case... Read more
Why do most philosophers insist that ethical principles should be universal? Can't I have my own private ethical code, my own set of principles, which I don't expect anyone else to follow, although I would not be against the fact that others follow it, that is, I'm not trying to be a free-rider or harm anyone. One of my principles might be: don't preach.
Peter Markie
April 25, 2008
(changed April 25, 2008)
Permalink
Let’s consider what it is for ethical principles to be universal. One way of understanding the claim that ethical principles are universal is to take it as the claim that the correct moral principles apply to all of us. Here’s one way to appreciate this claim. Suppose that a particular act, A... Read more
If, within a marriage, one partner denies the other sex, can they morally still demand that the other refrain? Note: assuming the standard Western marriage, with the assumption of exclusive monogamy. In other terms: Can we demand of our partners, in a marriage, "You can only have sex with me, and none other, and I'm not going to have sex with you".
Nicholas D. Smith
April 24, 2008
(changed April 24, 2008)
Permalink
Nothing is easy in this subject!
I think most people find the promises inherent to monogamy to be moral ones--though some philosophers have questioned whether promising to another exclusive access to one's own body is one that actually can be morally made. The tricky part lies in finding... Read more