Recent Responses
Dear philosophers, This is about suicide. If someone's experience of their life is negative and even if we in society do not believe their life is all that bad or that there is hope of it improving, isn't it the individual's right to remove themselves from what has become an unpleasant existence for them? Also is it fair to point to the harm that befalls others from said suicide as a reason against it when remaining alive would be causing the individual harm or pain? Is your life not your own and suicide your personal decision to not continue it? Thank you.
Thomas Pogge
March 7, 2006
(changed March 7, 2006)
Permalink
It is fair to point to the harms that would befall others, because such harms are surely not morally irrelevant. They are relevant, for example, when the potential suicide has caused others to be dependent on him or her, e.g. his or her children whose lives are likely to be blighted by the suicide... Read more
In light of a question about Irving and Holocaust denial [http://www.amherst.edu/askphilosophers/question/971], I wonder why free speech should be seen as an absolute principle which has no limits. It seems to me that practical wisdom dictates that in some cases for the good of society (for example, to avoid hate crimes) free speech must have certain limits. I have no idea how to determine those limits and I suspect that there isn't any formula, but perhaps you people can clarify the issue. Thanks.
Thomas Pogge
March 7, 2006
(changed March 7, 2006)
Permalink
Well, there is such a formula, actually, the so-called clear and present danger test. This goes back to an opinion Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes composed in regard to the case Schenk v. United States (1919). Schenk was general secretary of the American Socialist Party and had been co... Read more
I am a a high school teacher working for the Los Angeles Unified School District. I have been given approval to begin teaching a Philosophy survey course for the next school year. Although I am well read and schooled in Philosophy (I think?), I am unaware of possible textbooks for the study of Philosophy. I am looking for something that might be high school student friendly. Thus the Adorno Reader might be out of sorts for my pubescent high school students. In addition, I am fielding advice on the best approach to teaching Philosophy to high schoolers. I am interested in possible methods, assignments and projects. Any advice would be welcomed. Thank you, Ramon
Oliver Leaman
March 9, 2006
(changed March 9, 2006)
Permalink
I would add to the helpful suggestions that there is nothing like working with the students on an actual extended text, like one of the shorter Plato dialogues, perhaps, or some of Russell's essays, to bring them into direct contact with a philosopher. I have often found that this is effective i... Read more
How do we know that what is morally right and wrong is actually supposed to be right or wrong? Was there actually any intent for what is to be good or bad? -Tom Simmons (age 13)
Nicholas D. Smith
March 6, 2006
(changed March 6, 2006)
Permalink
I think there will be different answers to your question, depending upon what kinds of examples you specify. But as a general rule of thumb, I would be inclined to say that for the most part, we don't necessarily know what is right and what is wrong--we have to use our judgment about this, a... Read more
What is the origin of human ethics? How did ethics come into existence?
Nicholas D. Smith
March 6, 2006
(changed March 6, 2006)
Permalink
I am inclined to think that any very definite answer to this question would amount to a "just so" story--in other words, it would be pure speculation, as we obviously have no access to the origins of ethics, which would appear to be pre-historic (that is, before anything was written down so a... Read more
Do you think philosophical counseling is a legitimate form of philosophizing? Are there indeed situations, cases or problems better addressed or answered by philosophers (rather than psychologists)?
Nicholas D. Smith
March 6, 2006
(changed March 6, 2006)
Permalink
I am not sure what an "illegitimate" form of philosophizing would be--though different forms can be of varying quality. I also see quite a bit of activity at this website that looks to me like philosophical counseling, and I do think that philosophers are better equipped than others to handl... Read more
I am a a high school teacher working for the Los Angeles Unified School District. I have been given approval to begin teaching a Philosophy survey course for the next school year. Although I am well read and schooled in Philosophy (I think?), I am unaware of possible textbooks for the study of Philosophy. I am looking for something that might be high school student friendly. Thus the Adorno Reader might be out of sorts for my pubescent high school students. In addition, I am fielding advice on the best approach to teaching Philosophy to high schoolers. I am interested in possible methods, assignments and projects. Any advice would be welcomed. Thank you, Ramon
Oliver Leaman
March 9, 2006
(changed March 9, 2006)
Permalink
I would add to the helpful suggestions that there is nothing like working with the students on an actual extended text, like one of the shorter Plato dialogues, perhaps, or some of Russell's essays, to bring them into direct contact with a philosopher. I have often found that this is effective i... Read more
Do human beings search for questions that cannot be answered on purpose, or does it happen by chance?
Nicholas D. Smith
March 6, 2006
(changed March 6, 2006)
Permalink
Hmmm...so do you think this question is also unanswerable? How do you know the questions you refer to are actually unanswerable (as opposed, say, to be not yet answered)?
At the beginning of Aristotle's Metaphysics, he says that philosophy begins in wonder. It seems pretty clear that the hu... Read more
Is there a philosophical justification for democracy? It seems that it would have to be an argument from self-interest, but if we ask, "Whose self-interest?" then it would seem that a democracy isn't the best form of government for certain minority groups (e.g., a theocracy might be more in line with the interests of religious fundamentalists). And what if democracies are even downright harmful to, e.g., the elite? Also, a somewhat related question: is there a philosophical justification for taking from the rich and giving to the poor (which it seems is what socialism prescribes)? This question is 'somewhat related' to the previous question in that even if a democracy does benefit all, it certainly deprives certain groups of advantages they might otherwise have, and so, given a history, it cannot actually benefit all equally.
Bernard Gert
March 5, 2006
(changed March 5, 2006)
Permalink
Democracy is a form of government in which the sovereign power is vested in the majority, rather than being vested in a smaller group, such as an aristocracy, or in one person, e.g., a monarchy. A democracy does not necessarily seek to benefit all, indeed Mill talks about the tyrrany of the majori... Read more
If I cross my eyes, or press on one eyeball, I see double. This is explained by saying that we have two optical images, one on each retina, and they are normally coincident, whereas they are not coincident when pressing on one eyeball. I am now crossing my eyes and I see two computer monitors. Which is the real monitor: the one on the left, or the one on the right?
Richard Heck
March 5, 2006
(changed March 5, 2006)
Permalink
This question is obviously similar to this one. And the answer is much the same. You are not seeing two computer monitors. You are seeing one monitor, although it seems to you as if you are seeing two monitors. There is one monitor that both appears to be slightly to the left and appears to be sli... Read more