Recent Responses
Why don't humans think of all lives as equal, and instead that other creatures' lives hold more importance than others? For example a human kills an animal such as cows or pigs and no one (except animal rights activists and the like) has a problem with that, but if that same person killed another human they would be charged and sent to prison. In both cases a life is taken but (one human) and that person's life for some reason holds more importance than the animal's.
Richard Heck
March 3, 2006
(changed March 3, 2006)
Permalink
It is crucial, I think, to recognize that the relevant question here is not: Are the lives of humans more valuable than the lives of (other) animals? The objection to killing animals need not presuppose that animals' lives and humans' lives are of equal value. Most defenders of animal rights would... Read more
Is it possible, within the freewill/determinism duality, to posit a third pole - namely 'chance' in which spontaneity is possible albeit within a set of limiting conditions?
David Papineau
March 3, 2006
(changed March 3, 2006)
Permalink
Modern physics implies that some events are genuinely chancy, in away that undermines determinism: prior circumstances plus scientificlaws don't determine events like the decay of a radium atom, but onlyfix a probability for them.
This might look as if it opens theway for 'strong free will', in... Read more
When you see the Moon, which is about 250,000 miles away, does your consciousness extend out of your head, for a distance of 250,000 miles, to the Moon, or do you see an image of the Moon, brought to you by reflected sunlight? If you see an image of it then you do not see the real Moon, while if you see the real Moon then your consciousness somehow has to get out of your head to that distance. So do you see the real Moon, or not? The real Moon and the image cannot be one and the same, because the Moon is made of rock, and the image is not made of rock.
David Papineau
March 3, 2006
(changed March 3, 2006)
Permalink
Some philosophers do think that our consciousness 'extends out ofour heads' when we perceive things in our environment. But even theywouldn't hold that your consciousness embraces the moon now (ieas it is when you are perceiving it). For everybody must agree that youwon't see things that happen... Read more
Why is philosophy so difficult?
Lynne Rudder Baker
March 2, 2006
(changed March 2, 2006)
Permalink
Just think of the kinds of questions that philosopher ask--about goodness and justice, knowledge and belief, meaning and reference, just to take a few samples. There are no roadmaps for answering the kinds of question that (as Nicolas D. Smith said) set you to wondering. Even what counts... Read more
In the light of the recent sentencing of David Irving, is there still a philosophical - and perhaps general - importance of 'free speech' and the free exchange of ideas, or must we draw limits on what can be said and how it can be said?
Matthew Silverstein
March 2, 2006
(changed March 2, 2006)
Permalink
When it comes to the case of David Irving, I find myself in complete agreement with the NYU philosopher David Velleman, who argues on his blog that Irving's conviction and coerced confession are a disaster. Together they create the distinct impression that Irving recanted only in order to r... Read more
How can a person love another without knowing him/her personally?
Oliver Leaman
March 3, 2006
(changed March 3, 2006)
Permalink
On the other hand, when it comes to romantic love there is a sense in which too much knowledge might be thought to be a distraction. For example, we often compartmentalize our relationships with people, keeping separate different aspects of their personality in our minds because we suspect that w... Read more
Why is it that even though we cannot predict how long a person's life would be, the value of a person's life generally decreases as their age increase? I have in mind an assumption of the measurement of a person's life as what order of priority others would place in trying to save that person's life. For example if person A and person B's lives are both in equal danger and person C decides saving person A's life is of higher priority than saving person B's life, then person A's life is rated as having higher value than person B's life. For example, people would value a 2 years old life more than the life of a 60 year old person, regardless if the 2 year old only have 2 more year to live and the 30 year old have another 20 years. I speculate that the reason why the value of a person's life is inversely proportional to their age is because as a person age they have been able to experience and enjoy more of life. However, I disagree that a person's age can be an accurate measure of how much of life they have been able to enjoy. I would appreciate it if I can get some opinion on this.
Nicholas D. Smith
March 2, 2006
(changed March 2, 2006)
Permalink
As the old joke goes...Hey! I resemble that!
As someone pushing 60 myself, I guess my first reaction is to say that I most certainly do not think my life now has less value than that of a 2-year-old. Nor do I think the value of a human life is measurable in terms of how many (more) years th... Read more
Can counterfactuals ever provide reasonable support to an argument? It seems as if this shouldn't be the case (why should something that hasn't happened be of relevance to anything), yet in some instances appears to not be entirely unreasonable. For example, "if you had listened to me and turned LEFT at the light, we wouldn't be late right now" seems valid enough in some favourable circumstances. In fact, whether or not such circumstances are favourable seems to be tied to the (thorny) problem of being able to perform induction. I ask because a lot of people use counterfactuals to "explain" failures/situations ("if you had worked harder, you wouldn't be in this position right now" or "if we hadn't struck first, they would have" etc.). Is this a legitimate argument?
Nicholas D. Smith
March 2, 2006
(changed March 2, 2006)
Permalink
If no one had asked this question, I wouldn't be answering it!
Of course counterfactuals can provide good reasons for thinking certain things. (I'm inclined to add that if they weren't, we wouldn't use them so much...) The very fact that something is recognizably true gives us reason to bel... Read more
Is there a moral difference between wishing for a selfish outcome (e.g. someone's death) - and acting on that wish (murder).
Nicholas D. Smith
March 2, 2006
(changed March 2, 2006)
Permalink
In some ways of thinking, there is no significant moral difference between the two cases. For example, have a look at the gospel of Matthew 5:28 ("But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.") I gather that what this me... Read more
Why is sexism wrong?
Nicholas D. Smith
March 2, 2006
(changed March 2, 2006)
Permalink
Strange question! I am sure others can give a host of more sophisticated answers, but how's this, for starters: Sexism is wrong because it treats one group of people who are morally equal to another group of people as if they were not morally equal to that other group.
Why is racism wrong?... Read more