Recent Responses

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

Law Punishment

This is a follow-up to question 348. Matthew Silverstein argues that "There is at least one good consequentialist reason for punishing attempted murder less severely than murder. If the two crimes are punished equally, then the law will not deter someone who has tried and failed to murder from trying again!" I guess this is plainly wrong. If someone tries twice she should be punished for two crimes, and the global penalty will be higher (perhaps two times higher). I can't see the difference between that case and the cases where someone commits two (accomplished) crimes of the same type against the same person (or, for that matter, against two different persons).

Thomas Pogge February 6, 2006 (changed February 6, 2006) Permalink I agree that your solution works as well or better. Here are two different arguments a consequentialist might make. (1) Suppose all attempted murders are punished equally, regardless of success, with each attempt being punished with 6 years in jail and 30% of punished attempts successful. No... Read more

Justice Law

Should freedom of speech be absolute or should there be restrictions on publishing material that is offensive to religious sensitivities, particularly if publication serves no particular public interest?

Richard Heck February 6, 2006 (changed February 6, 2006) Permalink As well as the important question of principle (which I shall largely leave to others), there are ipmortant practical questions here: Exactly which religious sensitivities should be given legal standing? What counts as offense? How should it be determined whether publication serves a partic... Read more

Ethics Religion Sport

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

Ethics Sport

Aaron Meskin provided this as part of his response to a question about performance enhancing drugs: "...But there might be other sorts of reasons. Professional athletes are entertainers, and one of the things we value in entertainment is the manifestation of human skill at a very high level. Sport and other forms of entertainment are like art in that way. The use of performance enhancing drugs tends to undercut our sense that sport is valuable and enjoyable because it allows us to experience high levels of skill and human achievement." I think this is a reason IN SUPPORT of performance enhancing drugs! There are individuals who are biologically high on these same hormones, who no doubt enjoy enhanced performance over those who are naturally lower on these same hormones. Why not level the "playing field"? We would see enhanced performance from all players, but the highest from those who have perfected their technique. I don't see how use of these drugs "undercuts" our appreciation of sports. I fully support their use and believe that the reaction to prohibit them is just part of our society's "chemophobia". (Of course, we're not a fully chemophobic society- Starbucks on every block, prescription meds rampant, etc., but there is a large current of anti-drug sentiment, especially in America, that just doesn't exist in many other cultures.) Thanks- Dan

Richard Heck February 6, 2006 (changed February 6, 2006) Permalink I think it's not just that we take joy in "high levelsof skill and human achievement" that are the result of "extraordinaryand undeserved pieces of luck" but, perhaps even more so, in such performances that are the result of extraordinary dedication. Suppose it turned out that, shortly after... Read more

Animals Ethics Sex

'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

Animals Ethics Sex

'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?

Ethics

I have been thinking about the nature of "virtue" as it relates to culture and subcultures. My thought is that a clear way of defining a culture would be to identify the set of virtues that are respected. This would be appropriate with respect to understanding certain political leanings as well. For example, I suspect that many Repubicans would place the virtue of "Constancy" high on their lists, while many Democrats would place "Tolerance" highly. This leads to my question, Has any philosopher proposed a universal set of virtues? There are a couple of ways of looking at this. First, is there a set of virtues that is considered to be universal in that every culture recognizes and appreciates the same set? The second approach is whether there is a larger, yet still finite, set from which one could identify specific virtues that define a specific culture?

Jyl Gentzler February 5, 2006 (changed February 5, 2006) Permalink You might also want to look at Martha Nussbaum's "Non-Relative Virtues: An Aristotelian Approach," in Martha Nussbaum and Amartya Sen, eds., The Quality of Life (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993). Log in to post comments

Ethics Sport

Aaron Meskin provided this as part of his response to a question about performance enhancing drugs: "...But there might be other sorts of reasons. Professional athletes are entertainers, and one of the things we value in entertainment is the manifestation of human skill at a very high level. Sport and other forms of entertainment are like art in that way. The use of performance enhancing drugs tends to undercut our sense that sport is valuable and enjoyable because it allows us to experience high levels of skill and human achievement." I think this is a reason IN SUPPORT of performance enhancing drugs! There are individuals who are biologically high on these same hormones, who no doubt enjoy enhanced performance over those who are naturally lower on these same hormones. Why not level the "playing field"? We would see enhanced performance from all players, but the highest from those who have perfected their technique. I don't see how use of these drugs "undercuts" our appreciation of sports. I fully support their use and believe that the reaction to prohibit them is just part of our society's "chemophobia". (Of course, we're not a fully chemophobic society- Starbucks on every block, prescription meds rampant, etc., but there is a large current of anti-drug sentiment, especially in America, that just doesn't exist in many other cultures.) Thanks- Dan

Education

I am interested in reading about the philosophical ideas about authorship, and what it means to be an author. Could you recommend any good anthologies or other texts that might help me get started?

Rachana Kamtekar February 5, 2006 (changed February 5, 2006) Permalink I've thought about your question for a bit and I can only come up with a couple of titles, but they are really interesting works. One is Sartre's autobiography, The Words, which deals with the way in which writing (especially about someone's life) imposes a by-hindsight order and struct... Read more

Recent Responses

Pages