Recent Responses
I remember reading A.J. Ayer quoted somewhere as saying 'All morality based on authority is worthless' in the context of religious authority which I took to mean dictates like the Ten Commandments. Am I right in thinking he meant that acting morally based on fear of punishment or reward in an afterlife is repugnant because one is motivated wrongly, i.e., purely out of self-interest, or by just blindly conforming to one's religious text of choice? If this is so are we not only left with secular humanism as a basis for 'good' acts without self-interest? All religions seem to have similar ethical commandments which would point to their human (and sociological) rather than divine origins, wouldn't you say? I believe the Vatican has 'approved' Aristotle's ethics too which surely underlines my previous point. Are there any beginners' texts dealing with these matters you can recommend? Thanks for a great and edifying site.
Matthew Silverstein
February 23, 2006
(changed February 23, 2006)
Permalink
It's been a long time since I last read Ayer's comments on morality and religion, and so I don't have much to say in response to that aspect of your question. However, it seems clear that the force of morality cannot depend on the coercive sort of authority you describe, whether tha... Read more
The recent controversy surround the publication in a Danish newspaper of cartoons lampooning the Prophet Mahommad has given rise to claims that Danes and others should break taboos and that freedom of the press and free speech are of a greater value than maintaining such taboos. Could the same claim be made around dialogue concerning the Jews and Nazi Germany?
Thomas Pogge
February 23, 2006
(changed February 23, 2006)
Permalink
Yes, it makes sense to see these two cases as parallel. But in doing so I would disagree with your first and agree with your second suggestion.
I would agree that freedom of the press and free speech are more important that the maintenance of the taboos in question: Our countries should ou... Read more
There was a recently asked question which included the following quote: "[It involves] the murder of a seaman on a liferaft. Apparently, there were not enough provisions to allow everyone to live, so they drew names/straws in order to see who would have to sacrifice for the entire boat. The men on the boat faced murder charges when they arrived on land and I believe were convicted." My question is: Is this ethical at all? Is the life of one insignificant enough to be taken so others can live? And is it any less ethical if the person volunteers to be killed? Thanks. ~Kris S.
David Brink
February 23, 2006
(changed February 23, 2006)
Permalink
We can take one of two different attitudes toward the sanctity of life. We could try to promote this value or we could honor it on each and every occasion. Promoting value reflects a consequentialist approach to morality, whereas honoring values treats them as side constraints on the purs... Read more
I've been reading some encyclopedia articles on utilitarianism. As far as I can see, utilitarians have moved from (the defence of) the pursuit of happiness to the pursuit of preference satisfaction. A preference is satisfied, I suppose, when someone gets what she or he wants. Now, I think it's reasonable that we ought to try to make people happy, at least in most cases, but I don't think it as reasonable that we ought to try to give people what they want. And anyway, I think that these are two very different ethical theories. Should we call both "utilitarianism"?
Jyl Gentzler
February 23, 2006
(changed February 23, 2006)
Permalink
All Utilitarians share the view that we ought to assess the morality of actions in terms of how they affect the well-being of those whom they affect. They often differ in their conception of well-being. Some regard well-being as a matter of pleasure and the absence of pain; others have... Read more
What does philosophy have to say about the role of emotion relative to ethics? It seems clear that emotion cannot be relied upon to produce consistently accurate ethical judgments, yet it also seems that emotion is a motivator for people's actions (which must be considered in the context of ethics). Further, emotion seems to be used as an "acid test" of sorts for ethical judgments (i.e. things that are ethical should "feel" or "seem" right). These are three examples of the way emotion and ethics interact, but I'm interested in perspectives on what their relationship should be, in the interest of making optimal ethical choices.
Thomas Pogge
February 23, 2006
(changed February 23, 2006)
Permalink
A very nice classic essay on this question is "The Conscience of Huck Finn" by Jonathan Bennett. I think you'll find it congenial and responsive to your second and third questions especially. I found a version on the internet:
http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/jfb/huckfinn.pdf... Read more
If thinking proves existence, then how can you prove that anyone else exists?
Douglas Burnham
February 22, 2006
(changed February 22, 2006)
Permalink
It is worth noting that Descartes' version of this problem is made all the more difficult by the fact that thinking-substance and material-substance were considered to be of radically different types. Accordingly, it is not just the case that access to my thought, and proof of my existe... Read more
If the Sun were to explode we could not know of it until eight minutes later, because that is how long it takes for light to travel from the Sun to Earth. So for eight minutes we would see an unexploded Sun, while the real sun would be exploded. It follows that we do not see the real Sun. But everything we see must be later than reality, because of the time it takes light to travel from reality to our eyes, so nothing we see is real. Can this be true?
Douglas Burnham
February 22, 2006
(changed February 22, 2006)
Permalink
We do not see the sun as it is at the moment of our seeing; but it certainly does not follow from this that we do not see the real sun.
There are all kinds of delays, transformations and distortions of sensual evidence. This has led some philosophers (notably Descartes) to doubt whethe... Read more
I read that David Hume is called the "amazing". Why was this? Allan Whatley
Alexander George
February 22, 2006
(changed February 22, 2006)
Permalink
Because he was amazing.
Wonderful writer, deep and original philosophical positions, tantalizing arguments. (Read his Enquiries, for instance.)
Also, by all counts, a remarkable person. (Read Mossner's biography.)
Log in to post comments
If thinking proves existence, then how can you prove that anyone else exists?
Douglas Burnham
February 22, 2006
(changed February 22, 2006)
Permalink
It is worth noting that Descartes' version of this problem is made all the more difficult by the fact that thinking-substance and material-substance were considered to be of radically different types. Accordingly, it is not just the case that access to my thought, and proof of my existe... Read more
Should the retrospective ideas, advice, and wisdom of a dying person be heeded and followed in our own lives? That is, if a dying person wishes they would have lived in a different way, or says that certain things were the most valuable, should we follow this advice, and even change our lives to suit?
Andrew N. Carpenter
February 19, 2006
(changed February 19, 2006)
Permalink
To add to my colleague’s excellent comment, one might think that, for manyof us at least, dying is such a stressful time--with respect to health,emotionality, family dynamics, etc.--that a dying person is in a relativelypoor position to form and communicate considered wisdom about l... Read more