Recent Responses
There was a case in the U.K. (I believe) involving 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. What is the name of this case/story? I remember reading it in an Intro. to Philosophy class and I was hoping to use it for my high school class. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you. Michael Sterling
Thomas Pogge
January 21, 2006
(changed January 21, 2006)
Permalink
The Queen v. Dudley and Stephans
Log in to post comments
A friend once had me consider this logic. Because the Catholic Immaculate Conception doctrine is a cornerstone tenet of the church, but is essentially a dogmatic belief, any dogmatic doctrine canonized by the church must also be as worthy of faith as the Immaculate Conception doctrine. However the doctrine of transfiguration is also a dogmatic belief. Yet even after a priest has blessed the sacramental wine and bread, in reality it does not literally transfigure into the blood and body of Christ even though the doctrine of transfiguration states that it does. If the wine does not literally turn to blood, the doctrine of transfiguration is wrong and because the doctrine of transfiguration is equally as valid as the Immaculate Conception, it too is also wrong by association. However, if the Christ were literally made of bread and wine, then all conflicts would be resolved. Can you please comment on this logic? Thank you
Richard Heck
January 20, 2006
(changed January 20, 2006)
Permalink
I'm not sure there's much "logic" there, frankly.
First, the relevant doctrine is that of transubstantiation, not transfiguration. The latter term refers to the events described in e.g. Luke 9, when Jesus appears "transfigured" in the presence of Elijah and Moses. Second, I'm not entirely su... Read more
G'day Philosophers, Please let me preface my Q. by saying that it is not cynical, but an issue of long-standing puzzlement to me. Here goes. Why is it that Christians who read and believe in the authenticity of the Bible, can still see God as a supreme being of love and compasion? There is in my Bible instance upon instance of God being a malicious, genocidal monster who would compete with Hitler, Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein with his excesses. I just don't get it! Dave.
Richard Heck
January 20, 2006
(changed January 20, 2006)
Permalink
This depends a great deal upon how one reads the Bible. Frankly, I think there are many people whose views on this kind of question are inconsistent, even incoherent, just as you suggest. Take, for example, Pat Robertson, who recently suggested that God had caused Ariel Sharon to have a stro... Read more
Is there some kind of award for philosophical "discoveries" like the Nobel prizes for the sciences? Or do you philosophers disagree too much to call anything a definitive discovery?
Richard Heck
January 20, 2006
(changed January 20, 2006)
Permalink
So far as I know, there isn't really such an award, but I don't believe that's because we all disagree. One wouldn't have to give such an award for a "discovery". Rather, one might give the award for some other sort of contribution, and philosophers do agree, to a significant extent, about w... Read more
Is it fair and reasonable to say that one sport is more difficult than another? Sure football may be more athletic than golf, but does the ladder require more mental strength? Is it possible to rank the difficulty of sports?
Richard Heck
January 20, 2006
(changed January 20, 2006)
Permalink
Some comparisons may be possible, but I don't seen any particular reason to suppose that relative difficulty, for sports, is what mathematicians would call a total order: There may be questions of the form "Is A more difficult than B?" that simply do not have answers. The case of golf and fo... Read more
I used to think that I was an atheist when I was young. After a few years, I decided that I was agnostic, since I disliked the dogmatic denial of atheism. On reading some of the answers on this site, I am no longer sure what I am! I find the firm denial of atheism unscientific - there is always doubt.... there could conceivably be a God. To take such an uncompromising approach is to be as rigid in opinion as a believer. On the other hand, I don't BELIEVE in a God. What am I?!
Peter S. Fosl
January 20, 2006
(changed January 20, 2006)
Permalink
It sounds to me like you're a something of a skeptic--resistant to dogmatism of any kind, whether theist, atheist, or agnostic. (Yes, agnostics can be dogmatic, too, holding dogmatically that religious questions can't be answered.) It also sounds like you remain, however, troubled by a per... Read more
A friend of mine claims that the Iraq war was not 'illegal' as there are (and were) no laws in place that could allow it to be defined as such. Regardless of whether or not this is the case, is there an agreed set of philosophical principles that allow for war to be defined as 'legal/illegal' (and not just moral/immoral)? How might we go about discussing the legalities of war on an international scale? Alastair
Peter S. Fosl
January 20, 2006
(changed January 20, 2006)
Permalink
One of the criteria philosophers generally agree upon for just war is "legitimate authority"--that is, a just war must be authorized in legitimate (usually meaning lawful) ways. The United Nations charter and the U.S. Constitution, for example, set out procedures for properly authorizing wa... Read more
I'm currently studying the indirect approach to philosophical scepticism, and I'm struggling as to how you can say anything useful in this particular area of philosophy without dragging yourself into solipsism? For example, the philosophical sceptic may argue 'How can we know there are other people that have minds?'. It seems impossible to go anywhere with this point - what conclusion could you possibly arrive from it? I find it very difficult to understand because of two conflicting notions - whilst it seems impossible to prove that there are people that have minds, it would seem an absurd and ridiculous life to lead assuming that there are no other minds except my own. So what is one to do?
Peter S. Fosl
January 20, 2006
(changed January 20, 2006)
Permalink
Let's assume that one can't "know" that there are other minds. Does solipsism follow? It may be possible, but remember that from ignorance only ignorance follows. From not knowing whether there are other minds it follows only that we don't know whether or not there are other minds. Ther... Read more
As a response to question 758 Nicholas D. Smith said, "Even the atheist grants that God is that being than which no greater can be conceived. Hence, even for the atheist, God exists at least in the imagination (indeed, the atheist claims that God exists only in the imagination). But things that exist in reality are greater than things that exist only in the imagination. So, if God existed only in the imagination, then God would not be that being than which no greater can be conceived--for we can conceive a greater being: one that existed in reality as well as in the imagination). Hence, as God is that being than which no greater can be conceived, God must exist in reality." However, in question 26, Mitch Green says, "Many contemporary philosophers infer from the so-called Paradox of the Stone that omnipotence is not a matter of being able to do anything, but only a matter of *being able to do anything it is possible to do*. That observation suggests another possible insight. Consider the Problem of Evil. If God exists, then it might seem puzzling that God should permit the extent and kinds of evil that we can find. Now there are many things to say about this, but one pertinent to God's omnipotence is this: Certain moral virtues seem to require some evil, and in such a way that even God can't have one without the other. Even God, it might be remarked, can't make a world in which there is, for instance, forgiveness in the absence of any wrongdoing. (I can't forgive you unless you've wronged me in some way.) This is not to say that all virtues require evil, but just that some seem to, even if you're God. As it happens, contemporary philosophical theologians like Alvin Plantinga have made much of how God's powers might be surprisingly limited, while remaining omnipotent!" These two beliefs seem to be mutually exclusive. The first response defines God as the greatest of all conceivable beings, while the second response seemingly limits God's conceivable power. If I can imagine a being that can break the so-called Paradox of the Stone, then how would that be reconciled with this obvious loophole in God's omnipotence?
Peter S. Fosl
January 20, 2006
(changed January 20, 2006)
Permalink
This is an interesting claim. The tension, however, seems to rest on being able to "conceive" or "imagine" things that are impossible, such as breaking the stone paradox. But is it reallly possible to do that? Can one even conceive of forgiveness without things to forgive? If not, the "g... Read more
I'm currently studying the indirect approach to philosophical scepticism, and I'm struggling as to how you can say anything useful in this particular area of philosophy without dragging yourself into solipsism? For example, the philosophical sceptic may argue 'How can we know there are other people that have minds?'. It seems impossible to go anywhere with this point - what conclusion could you possibly arrive from it? I find it very difficult to understand because of two conflicting notions - whilst it seems impossible to prove that there are people that have minds, it would seem an absurd and ridiculous life to lead assuming that there are no other minds except my own. So what is one to do?
Peter S. Fosl
January 20, 2006
(changed January 20, 2006)
Permalink
Let's assume that one can't "know" that there are other minds. Does solipsism follow? It may be possible, but remember that from ignorance only ignorance follows. From not knowing whether there are other minds it follows only that we don't know whether or not there are other minds. Ther... Read more