Recent Responses
In many sporting competitions (and other types of competition) people will pray to God for help. Would it be fair to call such help cheating if it were granted? Is it ethical to even ask for what would be an unfair advantage over an opposing side in what should be a purely human competition? The critics of performance enhancing drugs seem to say nothing on this issue.
Lynne Rudder Baker
February 10, 2006
(changed February 10, 2006)
Permalink
I don't think that it's possible for God to cheat, even if he answered the competitor's prayer for victory. However, I agree with Richard Heck that there is something unseemly about praying for someone else's defeat (or misfortune). If we think about real conflicts, rather than s... Read more
In your opinion, is it OK to kill a spider, or a fly? I'm sure everyone has done so at some stage and felt no guilt, or only just a fleeting moment of sadness at the life just ended. But, should we go out of our way to avoid the killing of other living things, even seemingly insignificant insects? Can we allow ourselves this luxury on the basis that these are so much "lower" creatures as ourselves and therefore not worth bothering about? I would appreciate your thoughts on this.
Andrew N. Carpenter
February 10, 2006
(changed February 10, 2006)
Permalink
Environmental philosophers have done a lot of work exploring what sort of "moral consideration" we should accord non-human life. For some discussion of this, see my answer to this question.
Log in to post comments
In what ways do perceptions (what we see) and images (what we imagine) differ? Is a hallucination an image or a perception? How about a dream? Bob
Nicholas D. Smith
February 10, 2006
(changed February 10, 2006)
Permalink
I'm not quite ready to accept your terminology, but will try to respond in spite of that. I think the most obvious difference between ordinary perception and things like hallucinations and dreams is that the former sorts of experiences are reasonably assumed to be verific (that is, t... Read more
Considering the ethical reasons of stopping suicide: Why is it that, by default, our society would tend to reject suicidal behaviors and promote the prevention and stopping of suicide? Why can't a person have the right and freedom to choose what to do with his/her life without approval from others? If leading a lousy or good life is the choice and responsibility of the individual, why should choosing to live no life at all be an option not considerable?
Nicholas D. Smith
February 10, 2006
(changed February 10, 2006)
Permalink
Although I am somewhat sympathetic with your intuition that we should be free to choose to end our own lives, if we decide that they are no longer worth living, I am also cautious about removing all social interventions intended to prevent suicide, as well. My reservation comes from... Read more
In your opinion, is it OK to kill a spider, or a fly? I'm sure everyone has done so at some stage and felt no guilt, or only just a fleeting moment of sadness at the life just ended. But, should we go out of our way to avoid the killing of other living things, even seemingly insignificant insects? Can we allow ourselves this luxury on the basis that these are so much "lower" creatures as ourselves and therefore not worth bothering about? I would appreciate your thoughts on this.
Andrew N. Carpenter
February 10, 2006
(changed February 10, 2006)
Permalink
Environmental philosophers have done a lot of work exploring what sort of "moral consideration" we should accord non-human life. For some discussion of this, see my answer to this question.
Log in to post comments
Is it possible to suffer without knowing it? Is pain the only bad thing that can happen to people?
Bernard Gert
February 9, 2006
(changed February 9, 2006)
Permalink
It is clear that pain is not the only bad thing (harm) that can happen to people. For one thing, they can be killed. They can also be disabled or deprived of freedom or pleasure. Being deprived of pleasure is not the same as being caused pain. Obviously, one can be killed in one's sleep and... Read more
Can "God" be used as a name for whatever created the universe, while not actually meaning the "God" that exists in religion? Just a quick example, if the Big Bang was caused by a massive black hole that eventually absorbed all existing matter before imploding, could we call that process "god"? Or is "god" a defined word?
Andrew N. Carpenter
February 9, 2006
(changed February 9, 2006)
Permalink
With a term like 'God' there is no single meaning that you must use, soyour own intellectual and perhaps religious interests should guide you on this.Depending on your exact interests, you may or may not find yourself ininteresting conversation with others!
For example, using the wor... Read more
'Zoophiles', as they call themselves, often claim that committing sexual acts with animals is okay because animals are capable of consenting, either by sexual displays (lifting tails, humping hapless human legs, etc), or by not biting/fighting back, or by allowing the human access to them, so to speak. The problem I have with this is that an animal can't attribute the same idea to sex as a human can - for a human sex may be bound up with love and other types of emotions where by and large for animals it is another biological duty. In my opinion that would mean that there is no real consent between an animal and a human because the two are essentially contemplating a different act. Am I missing something here? And is there any validity in the idea that it is wrong to engage in sex with animals because for most humans it is intuitively wrong? If it doesn't really harm anyone - if the animal is unscathed - does that make the whole argument pointless?
Jyl Gentzler
February 11, 2006
(changed February 11, 2006)
Permalink
I haven’t given much thought to the ethics of sex between humans and non-humans, but it seems to me that the fact that sex between humans requires consent does not imply that sex involving non-human animals requires consent. We require consent in sexual relations between human beings beca... Read more
It was once claimed by a lecturer of mine that, if he were alive today, "Marx would not be a Marxist". Being relatively badly-read when it comes to Marx, could anyone explain to me why this might be the case?
Andrew N. Carpenter
February 8, 2006
(changed February 8, 2006)
Permalink
I don't know what your lecturer had in mind, but I too have heard several varations on this theme from students and colleagues.
Tomy mind, the strongest reason to assert something like this goes asfollows: "Marx underestimated the extent to which capitalism could'grow around' the int... Read more
To Whom it May Concern: Mathematical results are assumed to be precise. But how can mathematics be precise if results are rounded up or down? Don't such small incremental "roundings" add up to imprecision? So, in general, don't "roundings", in some way, betray the advertised precision of mathematics? Sincerely, Alexander
Daniel J. Velleman
February 8, 2006
(changed February 8, 2006)
Permalink
You're right, mathematical results will not be precise if they are rounded off -- which is why mathematicians usually don't round off their results. I think such rounding is much more common among people who are applying mathematics to real world problems than among mathematicians doi... Read more