Recent Responses
Why is it not acceptable to be naked in public? What makes it so absurd for people to be seen in their natual state? If i went to school naked, I would probably get expelled. So how did we come to decide what state of appearance should be in particular settings? Has it originated and developed because of the feelings people feel when they see a nude person that have caused us to think up this idea of clothing our bodies? Get what I'm trying to say? Deep down everyone wants society to make nudity the norm! (Except people living where it's real cold.)
Allen Stairs
March 20, 2008
(changed March 20, 2008)
Permalink
Part of what you're asking is a social science question: taboos against public nudity are pretty common (though not universal). How come? What's the best psychological or anthropological or perhaps even evolutionary explanation? Not being a social scientist, all I could do is speculate. The blin... Read more
How could experience ever justify us in revising a putatively analytic statement like 'all bachelors are unmarried men'? I imagine Quine is entertaining the possibility that we may stumble across some married or female bachelors. But how could this ever happen? No one can ever be a counter-example to our statement because to do this they would need to be married or female and would then fail to be a bachelor, that is, a married man. Despite the attention it has received, I find it hard to see the plausibility of Quine's position.
Peter Smith
March 18, 2008
(changed March 18, 2008)
Permalink
Start with a different case. Take the sentence "Whales are a kind of fish".
Once upon a long time ago, that would have been taken to be a truism. And someone who then denied "Whales are a kind of fish" would probably have been suspected of not understanding "whale" (or "fish") -- whales are "by... Read more
The Dover trial exposed Intelligent Design "theory" as a front for Creationism. But the Argument from Design has been around since Descartes at least. Do philosophers consider the latter also a theory worth taking seriously or would they dismiss it like the Dover judge did ID? (I wouldn't say Descartes was fronting it for Catholicism because it was the only religion he knew.) It was an odd trial: the only witnesses called were scientists and all the ID scientists were also Christians. What do you think about this? Why were no philosophers called on to testify when they are so well-acquainted with such arguments?
Jasper Reid
March 18, 2008
(changed March 18, 2008)
Permalink
One little historical point to begin with: Descartes didn't actually appeal to the Argument from Design at all. But you're certainly right that it has a long and venerable history behind it. It's the fifth of St Thomas Aquinas's 'Five Ways' of proving the existence of God; and, in some form or ot... Read more
Philosophy never seems to debate multiple Gods like the Vikings and the ancient Greeks had as well as Hinduism. These could be dismissed as silly, discredited ideas except Hinduism still has numerous believers. It seems no more ridiculous to me than the Father, Son and Holy Ghost scenario. Why is monotheism alone debated by religious Western philosophers? (Atheist ones will only consider a Prime Mover or Argument from Design creator but why is this? Is it because of over 2000 years of Abrahamic Gods, messiahs, and prophets with the attendant respectability these, believers would say, bestow?)
Douglas Burnham
March 16, 2008
(changed March 16, 2008)
Permalink
Two small additions to Prof. Stairs' answer.
First, it is interesting to note that even the ancient Greek and Roman philosophers, most of them anyway, although 'officially' polytheistic, generally just talk about one 'god'. That is, their philosophical inquiries push them towards monotheism,... Read more
What exactly does Kant mean when he says that we should never treat anyone as a means to an end? Surely there are many situations where I am trying to choose the lesser of two evils. Take a politician for example. He has a certain amount of money to spend on some people, so anything he does will be treating someone as a means to another end, as someone will always miss out at the benefit of someone else (though notice there is no element of selfishness here). I suppose my question is, does Kant mean we shouldn't cause suffering in another for our benefit, or we shouldn't cause suffering in another for ANY end such as for the benefit of another, or does he mean something else entirely? Thanks, Holly M. Fantastic site by the way, I'm addicted.
Douglas Burnham
March 16, 2008
(changed March 16, 2008)
Permalink
Please have a look at the question and especially the answer here:
http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/1476
It is interesting how economics in particular seems to offer the most obvious examples of how one's ends are always 'mixed'.
Log in to post comments... Read more
Philosophy never seems to debate multiple Gods like the Vikings and the ancient Greeks had as well as Hinduism. These could be dismissed as silly, discredited ideas except Hinduism still has numerous believers. It seems no more ridiculous to me than the Father, Son and Holy Ghost scenario. Why is monotheism alone debated by religious Western philosophers? (Atheist ones will only consider a Prime Mover or Argument from Design creator but why is this? Is it because of over 2000 years of Abrahamic Gods, messiahs, and prophets with the attendant respectability these, believers would say, bestow?)
Douglas Burnham
March 16, 2008
(changed March 16, 2008)
Permalink
Two small additions to Prof. Stairs' answer.
First, it is interesting to note that even the ancient Greek and Roman philosophers, most of them anyway, although 'officially' polytheistic, generally just talk about one 'god'. That is, their philosophical inquiries push them towards monotheism,... Read more
I do not believe that true freedom can actually exist within any society that is governed by any form of laws or rules. To me, freedom is to be completely without restraint of any kind, be it legal, social, theological, or whatever. As long as there exists any sort of list of things that are not to be done, said, or thought, and these rules are actively upheld by empowered individuals and/or groups, I do not think that anyone within such a society is truly free. I would like to know if anyone agrees or disagrees and why.
Allen Stairs
March 13, 2008
(changed March 13, 2008)
Permalink
Consider this little argument:
A society with laws against killing is a society where true freedom doesn't exist.A society where true freedom doesn't exist is undesirable.Therefore, a society with laws against killing is undesirable.
The argument is superficially valid, but it rests on an equivo... Read more
Is prostitution wrong? Clearly, it's illegal in some countries. But is it really immoral or wrong? Surely prostitution may, in some limited set of cases at least, even maximize average utility, or involve consenting adults who agree to being used by one another, or one by the other, as "mere" means. What is the relevant difference, in principle, between a one night stand and an instance of prostitution? Or between paying for sex and paying for a cab-ride home for one's sex-partner after a one night stand (or paying for a meal or drinks beforehand)?
David Brink
March 13, 2008
(changed March 13, 2008)
Permalink
It's hard to believe that prostitution, as such, is wrong. There would seem to be cases in which this could be an unobjectionable voluntary exchange of services in which both parties are free to make the exchange. In such cases, it's not clear why engaging (or serving as) a prostitute would be... Read more
Is it fair to require Muslims born in Britain and brought up under Sharia law to accept as universal, laws which are underpinned by and reflect Western values utterly at odds with Muslim beliefs?
Peter S. Fosl
March 7, 2008
(changed March 7, 2008)
Permalink
It's hard to know exactly how to respond to this question, I'm afraid, without knowing what the specific conflict is. I suppose your questions might be rephrased as something like: when religious imperatives are somehow inconsistent with government law, which should be given precedence? I don'... Read more
Should there be a human right to freely move where people want to, including crossing over into other sovereign territories, provided that this right does not infringe on the rights of others?
Peter S. Fosl
March 7, 2008
(changed March 7, 2008)
Permalink
In a word, yes. The extent to which states prohibit people from exercising the liberty to live where they wish troubles me. In fact, it's funny you raised this question just now, as just the other day my son found himself reeling when, after announcing to me that he planned to emigrate to Scotl... Read more