Recent Responses
John Ruskin once wrote: “Seek not the nobleness of the man and hence the nobleness of the delights, seek the nobleness of the delights and hence the nobleness of the man.” Is there a consensus on this? Does moral goodness automatically derive from sound aesthetic judgment, or is it possible to be virtuous person and still like reality television? --Patrick Tucker
Douglas Burnham
January 26, 2006
(changed January 26, 2006)
Permalink
I suspect that there is near universal agreement on one thing, namely that 'moral goodness' does not automatically derive from sound aesthetic judgement. As Kant (with uncharacteristic wit) puts it: "virtuosi of taste, who not just often but apparently as a matter of habit, are vain, obs... Read more
What is stupidity? IS it thinking the wrong way or is it having the ability to know and not using the potential? Also, is asking a stupid question necessarily stupid or does it make the person intelligent to make an unobvious connection when the answer should be obvious?
Bernard Gert
January 26, 2006
(changed January 26, 2006)
Permalink
People use the word "stupid" in many ways. Sometimes it is used as a synonym for "ignorant." Sometimes it is used as a synonym for someone with low intelligence. This is unfortunate, for it makes it difficult for an important distinction to be drawn. A person who does not know some fact is i... Read more
Death is widely considered to be the permanent and irreversible end to life. So would you consider someone who died in the present day and was cryogenically frozen and bought back to life to have ever been dead? What are the implications for how we define death?
Bernard Gert
January 26, 2006
(changed January 26, 2006)
Permalink
Death is not only considered to be the permanent and irreversible end to life, it is the permanent and irreversible end to life. Thus, it is not possible for someone who died in the present day to be cryogenically frozen and bought back to life. But it is certainly possible for someone who... Read more
Is it wrong to share copyrighted songs and video over the internet? I think the law should be changed to take away the protection of copyright. What do you think?
David Papineau
January 29, 2006
(changed January 29, 2006)
Permalink
I'm going to comment on the question of whether copyright laws arein fact justified, rather than the question Bernard Gert addresses,namely, of whether it is morally wrong in general to violate laws(though in passing I can't stop myself observing that, when it comes tointernet activities,... Read more
It seems that human beings are hedonistic by nature. We use reason to find the course that will serve us best when a decision needs to be made. However, we are also passionate by nature. On some occasions our passion, be it in the form of love, hate, ecstasy, or anger, will cause us to abandon reason and perhaps act in a way that is not in our best interest. It is often said that we should follow our hearts and embrace our passionate side. My question is should we live passionately, for better or for worse, or should we try to contain our passions and live by reason?
Bernard Gert
January 26, 2006
(changed January 26, 2006)
Permalink
If you mean by "hedonistic by nature" that human beings always act so as to secure the most pleasure for themselves, then your next remarks shows that you correctly do not think this is true. However, you seem to equate being hedonistic with doing what is in one's self-interest, and this is... Read more
Do ideas exist independently, out there in the ether, waiting to be discovered. For instance did the idea of the motor car exist say 1000 years ago before any human ever thought of it? Steve B.
Joseph G. Moore
January 25, 2006
(changed January 25, 2006)
Permalink
Discovered things seem to exist independently of their discovery (think of uninhabited islands and rare species), while invented things come into existence in the very process of their invention (think of the first light bulb). But even if the first light bulb came into existence when Edi... Read more
Am I morally bound to tell my sex partner if I fantasize about someone else whilst making love to her? Or the subject of the fantasy for that matter? SteveB
Alan Soble
February 2, 2006
(changed February 2, 2006)
Permalink
In my reply to Tom's reply, I asked for argument, reasons, what philosophers are supposed to do as philosophers, if not duty-bound to do. And, finally, he did it. Thank you, Tom. Maybe I am thick and hence couldn't read the argument(s) that really did exist between or amongst those three short... Read more
I am having trouble understanding the difference between a 'necessary' and a 'sufficient' condition (in philosophical usage). Would I be right in thinking that the former is a condition that must be present in order for something to happen, while the latter is merely 'enough', i.e. that no other condition needs to be met (while with a necessary condition others can be met)?
Joseph G. Moore
January 25, 2006
(changed January 25, 2006)
Permalink
That's right.A is a necessary condition for B: B obtains only if A obtains. A is a sufficient condition for B: If A obtains then B obtains. A can be a necessary but not a sufficient conditiion for B. Example: having legs is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for walking (the legs... Read more
I am having trouble understanding the difference between a 'necessary' and a 'sufficient' condition (in philosophical usage). Would I be right in thinking that the former is a condition that must be present in order for something to happen, while the latter is merely 'enough', i.e. that no other condition needs to be met (while with a necessary condition others can be met)?
Joseph G. Moore
January 25, 2006
(changed January 25, 2006)
Permalink
That's right.A is a necessary condition for B: B obtains only if A obtains. A is a sufficient condition for B: If A obtains then B obtains. A can be a necessary but not a sufficient conditiion for B. Example: having legs is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for walking (the legs... Read more
Is it wrong to secretly feel that an acquaintance is acting hypocritically and making stupid decisions, but to just smile and nod when they talk, and not tell them what you really think? Or...worded differently... Is it wrong to feel internally that you just plain don't LIKE someone -- their morals, their behavior, their attitude, their actions --- but you don't tell them, and you allow them to think that you are their friend? (You do this partly because you are afraid to tell someone to "go away", and you hope over time that they will just drift away from you, without you having to do the ugly job of telling them to go away. You also do it partly because this person, although morally repugnant, is somewhat entertaining and makes fun stories to tell your spouse later on.)
Ernie Alleva
January 25, 2006
(changed January 25, 2006)
Permalink
Honesty about such things is essential to a friendship of any substance. However, there are different kinds or degrees of friendship. If the person is, as you say, an "acquaintance" (say, someone who you run into occasionally or you see on and off at work), where there is no assumption of op... Read more