Recent Responses
can religious be consistent with philosophical ethics?
I am not entirely clear about
Charles Taliaferro
April 16, 2016
(changed April 16, 2016)
Permalink
I am not entirely clear about the question, exactly. If "philosophical ethics"means ethics (either ethical theories or specific ethical positions) that are supported by philosophical theories or reasons, then many such theories and reasons may be consistent wi... Read more
Perhaps someone can help me in framing either my logic or my language here, please? Proposition A: It seems to me that a corporation has no tangible, physical existence: it only exists as an abstract entity because of common agreement. You can point to assets owned by a corporation, or people employed by a corporation, but you cannot point to anything in the world of things and say "that is a corporation." it is totally intangible. Proposition B: a tax ultimately is a claim on something tangible. Originally, men with spears came and took your grain or your goats. Later, men with guns and badges come and take your possessions. Conclusion: it is impossible for a corporation to "pay" a tax: the corporation merely serves as a tax collector, while other people (suppliers, customers, employees, shareholders) actually pay the tax (in the sense of having fewer tangible things in their possession than otherwise). The sales tax is an example: the customer pays part of the tax at the cash register, employees and shareholders pay part of the tax by devoting payroll time to filling out forms and remitting the money when they could be doing other things if the tax did not exist. It seems eminently logical and reasonable to me; however the way I frame it or phrase it seems lacking in some respect. Is this reasoning logically valid? how might I tighten it up? Thanks very much.
I suggest to you that
Charles Taliaferro
April 16, 2016
(changed April 16, 2016)
Permalink
I suggest to you that corporations (as well as nations, colleges, etc) do exists, though they do so in the realm of law and markets in which they can be objects of praise and blame. They do not have "tangible physical existence" in the sense that they are like rocks a... Read more
I've been wrestling with this problem for some time. My question concerns the concept of 'possibility'. When one says that something is possible, they are saying that something might be but may not be as well. There is an uncertainty. And of course whatever it is cannot both be and not be at the same time. Now, when we say that something is 'not possible', we are saying that something is not and cannot be. There is no uncertainty and the term as used does not seem to be a true negation as is usually meant when the term 'not' is used. What confuses me, is that in when actually trying to negate the concept of possibility, such as when saying 'not possible', aren't we on the one hand saying that 'that which might be' is not, and on the other hand that 'that which may not be' is not as well, and therefore is (or could be)? What may be is not and/or what may not be is. Saying that something is not possible, in this sense, is the same as saying that it is possible, thus making the negation of the concept meaningless. Is this confusion brought about do to a language or linguistic imperfection or peculiarity or just bad logic and fuzzy thinking on my part. Or does the dual nature of the concept of possibility (the uncertainty of either x or y) make negating it meaningless, so that there is always only the possible. I'm confused.
I don't think there's a deep
Stephen Maitzen
April 14, 2016
(changed April 15, 2016)
Permalink
I don't think there's a deep puzzle here, as I hope I can explain.
The kind of possibility that stems from uncertainty is usually called "epistemic possibility," often signaled in English by "may" or "might," as in "There may [or might] be life on other p... Read more
Most of the arguments I hear about government-sponsored social welfare program seem aimed at whether it is appropriate for the government to confiscate assets from one group of people in order to then distribute them to a different group of people. These discussions always seem to omit any examination of the effects on the people receiving the assistance, especially whether it is more harmful than helpful to them when all things are considered. Every parent (or aunt/uncle) probably has been in a situation in which their child says "I want to do it myself." Helping people develop a sense of personal responsibility and competence in managing their own life seems to be an integral part of parenting. So (setting aside the exception of people who are permanently disabled in some way): how do we reconcile these two situations? It seems like private social welfare programs are aimed at helping people through temporary difficulties on their way from once being and again becoming "self-reliant" (in an interpersonal network of mutual assistance that we call "society"); while government-sponsored social welfare programs seem to keep the people they purport to "help" in a state of permanent dependency. The latter seems immoral to me. A cynic might even say that the politicians who designed the government-sponsored social welfare programs deliberately use that dependency as a way to make sure they get enough votes to remain in office. Whether that last sentence is true or not, it does seem really bizarre to me that so little attention is paid to whether the government-sponsored social welfare programs are a net boon or a net bane to the recipients once all effects are included in the consideration. Thanks for your thoughts on the matter. PS I have been active throughout my life in private social welfare programs: food distribution, establishing co-ops, clothing drives, and the like. I think we have an obligation in an interdependent society to help each other through rough patches, but that help (again with some exceptions) should never be permanent.
Two quick points.
Allen Stairs
April 14, 2016
(changed April 14, 2016)
Permalink
Two quick points.
The first is that I've heard a great deal of talk about the dependency issue. Ad when I say "I've heard," I don't mean in my own social circle. I mean from politicians and professional pundits. Indeed, this issue of dependency has been a long-time GOP taking po... Read more
If something is morally good, then everybody has a moral reason to prefer it, isn't it? But if Lucretia has a moral duty to do something, then, philosophers say, Lucretia -- and not necessarily anybody else -- has a moral reason to do it. Does that make sense: if it is a moral duty, it should give moral reasons to everybody, shouldn't it?
Suppose we accept your
Michael Cholbi
April 7, 2016
(changed April 7, 2016)
Permalink
Suppose we accept your proposal that if something is morally good, then everybody has a moral reason to prefer it. It doesn't follow though, at least without additional argument, that if everyone has moral reason to prefer something, everyone has a moral duty to do that thi... Read more
The general consensus seems to be that since men aren't women, they can't speak about or fully understand the issues pertaining to women. I once read an analogy that tried to equate this logic with someone telling a veterinarian that since he isn't a cat, he cannot speak about the issues pertaining to cats. But since veterinarians do speak about cat issues, then it is safe to assume that men can speak about women's issues as well. Does the analogy work? Can men speak about women's issues?
To start with the literal
Stephen Maitzen
April 7, 2016
(changed April 7, 2016)
Permalink
To start with the literal truth: Men can indeed speak about issues pertaining to women, because (some) men do speak about such issues, which proves that they can. The question is how authoritative, how credible, about those issues a man can be. I think that will depend... Read more
Could I have come into existence and experienced my "self" if my ancestors had not been the same persons, or if a different sperm cell had coupled with my mothers egg? Would my "I" then have remained unborn or been born to a different body, maybe at a different time, or my vacancy occupied by a different persons "I"? In order for a particular "I" to be realized, must it have existed as a potential beforehand, like a lottery tickets potential for winning? Evolution and probability theory indicate that the chances for any particular individual to exist is practically zero. Have we who exist been incredibly lucky, or can our "I" be realized in some other being? If so, on what grounds is the particular potential self assigned to a particular body. I have explored several philosophical texts hoping to find something about this topic, but without success. I would be very glad if you could comment on it or direct me to some illuminating textbook or other source.
Your questions touch on
Stephen Maitzen
April 3, 2016
(changed April 3, 2016)
Permalink
Your questions touch on several interesting and difficult issues. If you haven't already consulted it, I recommend looking at the SEP entry on "Possible Objects". It's a somewhat challenging read, but it contains discussion (for example, in Section 2.2) of the issues you... Read more
I don't know if this a philosophical question or scientific question, So this is my question, If A create all things, is it logically safe to say that A is uncreated?
The analogy to printing money
Stephen Maitzen
August 11, 2016
(changed August 11, 2016)
Permalink
The analogy to printing money fails. There's an obvious difference between (a) "I create everything except myself" and (b) "I print all the money except what's in my wallet." Given the impossibility of creating my own creator, (a) implies that I am uncreated. By... Read more
Why do you think there are so few women philosophers? For example there are only four, or five, on this panel.
Great question, one that many
Eddy Nahmias
March 31, 2016
(changed March 31, 2016)
Permalink
Great question, one that many people have been asking and trying to answer recently. Led by Morgan Thompson and with some other former MA students at Georgia State, we carried out an empirical investigation of why women are less likely to major in philosophy than me... Read more
This is probably a foolish question but I'm bored and I think you get paid for this, a short answer would not offend me nor would none at all. Can you make any kind of judgment about a person by the look in their eyes, I'm not sure judgment is the right word. Iv seen people who I could tell had been through a lot and been right, coincidence maybe but I'm not sure maybe its hormones or something. Perhaps you've spent some time thinking about it if so please share if not please share anyway.PS you guys are amazing and I thank you for all the answered questions, I never thought I'd get an answer to one let alone all of them cept for one but I understand why it wasn't answered. I don't know what you get paid but its not enough
As it turns out, we don't get
Allen Stairs
March 31, 2016
(changed March 31, 2016)
Permalink
As it turns out, we don't get paid. One reason is that, as you may have noticed, there's no charge to ask a question and there's no tip jar. ;-)
On to the question. It's an empirical question; it depends on how our minds and bodies actually work. But it's prett... Read more