Recent Responses
We are often told that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But I wonder if this is not an over-simplification. Surely some things are beautiful regardless of our response to that beauty. Is there not a case to be made for completely objective beauty?
Allen Stairs
September 14, 2007
(changed September 14, 2007)
Permalink
This much seems plausible: whether something is beautiful doesn't depend on the actual responses that anyone has. It might be that no one has seen the thing. It might be that everyone who's seen it so far doesn't have the discrimination to appreciate it. It may be that no one who's ever... Read more
Does a person have any moral/legal OBLIGATION to have sex with his/her partner in a relation of marriage? Thanks.
Alan Soble
September 17, 2007
(changed September 17, 2007)
Permalink
I'm back, after only three days of teaching, grading, and occasionally goofing off. Here are a few thoughts about the issue and Professor Haslanger's reply to the question.
(1) Professor Haslanger writes, “Certainly there is noobligation to have sex with someone you don't desire outside o... Read more
Do I need to have a 'greater authority' to know that murder is wrong? I don't believe in god. But I believe that murder is wrong. What is my logical reason to hold to rules that I don't 'need' to be bound to?
Oliver Leaman
September 13, 2007
(changed September 13, 2007)
Permalink
I don't know why you think that belief or otherwise in God is relevant to this issue. You hold certain moral beliefs, including that murder is wrong. You might have this view because of the role that murder plays in some of your other beliefs, such as the importance of human life and th... Read more
Is it emotionally difficult to be a professional philosopher? Sometimes philosophical questions and subject matter seem so disturbing and intense, that it must surely be taxing psychologically. Does non-philosophical subject matter become pale and boring in comparison? Are professional philosophers socially isolated because of boredom with the non-philosophical, concomitant with the disturbing nature of the philosophical (so that it may not be acceptable in non-philosophical company)? Thanks.
Douglas Burnham
October 7, 2007
(changed October 7, 2007)
Permalink
I'd like to add a comment to Allen Stairs' excellent answer: it is worth distinguishing between philosophers who write about 'angst', and the experience of angst. In existentialism, for example, the experience of anxiety is often considered to be philosophically interesting (the fact that a... Read more
Suppose that a fetus is at a stage when it is considered permissible to be aborted. Suppose that the woman bearing the fetus decides, for some reason, that she would prefer that the child be born with no arms. To that end, she takes some kind of potion, and the child is later born with no arms. I think that most people would feel that the woman's action was wrong because it was wrong to deprive the child that was born of his or her arms and their use. But if that's true, why is it permissible to deprive the child that would have been born of his or her body and its use?
Jyl Gentzler
October 18, 2007
(changed October 18, 2007)
Permalink
You might also find helpful the responses to a related question: http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/1247
Log in to post comments
The concept of a homunculus suggests that there is an inner core in each of us, a "self" that makes functional and moral decisions. The emerging sciences of complex adaptive theory and network theory suggest there is no homunculus in complex living systems (from cells to the global economy). An identifiable self has not been located by neurobiologists and may never be located. The self appears to be a composite of many internal systems that interact with many external systems. If we cannot locate the self, if there is no homunculus to point to as the agent of a "good" or "bad" decision, if people are more than the sum total of their parts and cannot be reduced to a single part (such as the self), does morality still exist? That is, does the concept of morality exists if there is no concept of the self?
Allen Stairs
September 13, 2007
(changed September 13, 2007)
Permalink
Suppose there were a homunculus. Would it be like me? That is, would it have conflicting motives? Foggy beliefs? Occasional weakness of will? And while we're at it, would it make any difference if the homunculus were located in one compact region of the brain? Or woud it do just as well... Read more
I am a philosophy student and I have noticed that there are some days (rarely) in which I simply can not absorb. A lot of times I will work extra hard to concentrate but find that it is simply useless and a waste of times. Is it necessary to take breaks from intellectual work? I always just assumed the mind could handle whatever you could feed it, is this false? Are there things in which I can do to improve my concentration and productivity in situations like this? Or do I just need to slow down? Thanks, Josh
Allen Stairs
September 12, 2007
(changed September 12, 2007)
Permalink
Brains, like the rest of us, need rest; I wouldn't be bothered by the occasional hazy day. Simple tips include getting enough sleep, getting some exercise, drinking tea or coffee in moderation -- all the obvious stuff. A little less obvious: some sort of meditation practice. Take a look... Read more
What is the relationship between philosophy and ethics?
Mitch Green
September 10, 2007
(changed September 10, 2007)
Permalink
Thank you for your question. In the broadest terms, ethics is a branch of philosophy. Alongside this branch are others such as epistemology, philosophy of mind, metaphysics, and logic. Unlike these other fields, however, ethics is now extending its reach beyond the confines of traditio... Read more
Rational or Antisocial? For the last few years I've focused solely on my own self-interest without regards to ethics or morality. Though I understand the importance of social restraint and exercise it regularly, it's never for an altruistic reason. The traditional Right/Wrong no longer makes sense to me. I've found that under this mindset, things like war, dystopia and all things negative don't seem to affect me on an emotional level as they normally would. I can rely on my ego to maintain mental stability under all negative situations and can then act in a rational manner to overcome them. And also under this condition, I can comfortably commit "wrong" actions towards other individuals if it results in my gain. Though I do view life as being under a constant struggle to overcome a very indifferent environment, I am glad to be alive with the ability to freely make my own decisions. So I guess what I'm asking is why would most consider this lifestyle/mindset wrong when I can live happily and function in society?
Allen Stairs
September 10, 2007
(changed September 10, 2007)
Permalink
You've pointed out that you're quite comfortable committing "wrong" actions if it suits your needs. That should already suggest a pretty clear reason why most people wouldn't be too happy about your outlook. If I were around you and I believed that you really look at things the way you s... Read more
Does a person have any moral/legal OBLIGATION to have sex with his/her partner in a relation of marriage? Thanks.
Alan Soble
September 17, 2007
(changed September 17, 2007)
Permalink
I'm back, after only three days of teaching, grading, and occasionally goofing off. Here are a few thoughts about the issue and Professor Haslanger's reply to the question.
(1) Professor Haslanger writes, “Certainly there is noobligation to have sex with someone you don't desire outside o... Read more