Recent Responses
Is true, honest-to-god deontology possible, or is what we call deontology just far-sighted consequentialism? Kant's ends principle is the classic ethical principle from deontology, right? But even Kant's principle is inextricable (I think) from Enlightenment meliorism. That is, treating people as ends-in-themselves is moral because it leads to a better world, no? Deontology is supposed to divorce ethics from consequences, but don't attempts to establish rational moral principles still take for granted certain principles, such as human dignity, species survival, or (if nothing else) logical integrity?
This question expresses a
Michael Lacewing
February 2, 2016
(changed February 2, 2016)
Permalink
This question expresses a puzzle that many philosophers have shared. However, I think that whether Kant was right or not (I think not, myself), his theory turns out not to be a form of consequentialism. This only becomes apparent when we look at the logical struc... Read more
What is a 'local community'? In the UK, the media will often use the word(s) 'community' or 'local community'. I struggle to see how this term can be defined. Is a community a purely defined by geographical location? If so, is the person who lives 10cm outside this zone not part of the community? Do we have to share the same beliefs, customs or rituals? Is the definition subjective or objective? Am I massively over thinking the matter? I would appreciate any help or comments. Many thanks
I think you rightly put your
Charles Taliaferro
January 28, 2016
(changed January 28, 2016)
Permalink
I think you rightly put your finger on a problem. In the USA, we use the term 'community' to refer to groups of people who are not at all (necessarily) living in proximity, e.g. the gay community or the LGBT community, the Muslim community, etc. I could ta... Read more
Is Science born from Philosophy? And so, what about Quine's anti-foundationalism? Is it correct?
Interesting! Originally,
Charles Taliaferro
January 28, 2016
(changed January 28, 2016)
Permalink
Interesting! Originally, what we might call "science" was done by those referred to as "philosophers." So, the preSocratics (like Thales) investigated the structure of nature / reality and, in doing so, he would have found it very odd if asked whether his "sc... Read more
Some philosopher have said that the very static nature of concepts excludes the dynamic and thus undefinable nature of reality. I don't know how strong that argument is. They say to conceptualize change by reference to unchanging principles is somehow wrongheaded. Can philosophers understand change while avoiding the problems these critics raise and what philosophers in the analytic tradition of thought have tangled with these criticisms?
For a very readable and up-to
Stephen Maitzen
January 27, 2016
(changed January 27, 2016)
Permalink
For an accessible and up-to-date discussion of these issues, I recommend Time, Language, and Ontology (OUP, 2015) by Joshua Mozersky. The author's interview at 3:AM Magazine contains a good overview of the book.
Log in to post comments... Read more
It’s not difficult now to find able moral philosophers such as TiborMachan, Tara Smith, Ayn Rand and others defending egoism as a viable normative ethical theory. My question is: supposing that I can get away with it, why shouldn’t I freeride if I take egoism to be correct? I am aware that only a minority of philosophers subscribe to egoism. Thus if I may ask a different but still connected question, does the injustice of freeriding prove that egoism is not practically livable?
An interesting question.
Michael Lacewing
January 23, 2016
(changed January 23, 2016)
Permalink
An interesting question. There are a large number of rather tangled issues involved in thinking about egoism as an ethical theory. Let's take this as the claim that (for each of us) I should look out for my interests only (or primarily). The implicit contrast is t... Read more
If what makes something immoral is any act that harms someone, would deliberately harming oneself count as an immoral act? And if some other person who is harmed agreed to be harmed, would that be immoral?
Excellent and highly relevant
Charles Taliaferro
January 22, 2016
(changed January 22, 2016)
Permalink
Excellent and highly relevant to some contemporary debates. A very minor first point, something might be immoral (for example, kicking dogs) even if dogs are not persons (though I admit that I think of my dog Pip as a "someone). Those in what is tradition... Read more
My question is about real vs. nominal definitions. It is generally, though not universally, held that to come up with a real definition, one needs to investigate the world to discover the properties of the entity denoted by the term. So for example, to provide a real definition of the term "tiger," one would need to look at tigers to determine their characteristics. My question is: does this characterization of real definitions imply that one can make assertions about real definitions that are true or false? Consider the following: I fix the denotation of the term "tiger" (pointing to several large cats), and then provide the following real definition of "tiger": an eight-legged invertebrate. Can I accurately say that the real definition I provided for "tiger" is false? Likewise, is the correct real definition of tiger: a large four-legged cat, true?
Great question! The idea of
Charles Taliaferro
January 22, 2016
(changed January 22, 2016)
Permalink
Great question! The idea of there being "real definitions" is linked to the idea that there are natural kinds or types of things and that we can discover these. So, we can discover what makes a tiger a tiger and come to know that those animals we recognize a... Read more
What constitutes a duty? I read somewhere that the elderly who are very ill have a “duty to die” in order to relieve taxpayers of taxes to pay for the elderly’s healthcare. Is this assessment fair? Do the elderly have a duty to kill themselves if they are already being a burden to others and society in general?
Leaving aside the gargantuan
Michael Cholbi
January 21, 2016
(changed January 21, 2016)
Permalink
Leaving aside the gargantuan question 'what constitutes a duty?', let's focus on the question of whether the elderly ever have a duty to die.
In a famous article http://web.utk.edu/~jhardwig/dutydie.htm, John Hardwig argues that some elderly or ill individuals h... Read more
Why is philosophy difficult to define?
Another (and very different)
André Carus
January 21, 2016
(changed January 21, 2016)
Permalink
Another (and very different) response, to yet another iteration of this same question on this site, is here.
Log in to post comments
Both idealism and materialism have convincing arguments for me, yet within each argument are refutations of the other. How can I reconcile which to believe when they both seem equally as likely? I've thought that perhaps idealism explains our own subjective worlds, and materialism explains the objective external world, but can both be true when they contain refutations of the other?
Yuval Avnur's response to
André Carus
January 21, 2016
(changed January 21, 2016)
Permalink
Yuval Avnur's response to this question is of the kind that is currently most popular among philosophers; it takes the "existence" question (or, as philosophers like to say, the "ontological" question) seriously, at face value. There is another approach, though,... Read more