Recent Responses
Let's say John hears from others that he seems perfect for some job/field, or a natural at that job/field. "You really ought to do this or that." Further, John is aware that he is very skilled at that activity, and would be a natural at it (in other words, it's not just mom's wishful thinking that her son should be a doctor). However, John has no interest in pursuing this field, and would rather do something else. Does he owe it to the world at large to follow the unwanted path and do great things for humanity?
Lynne Rudder Baker
December 29, 2005
(changed December 29, 2005)
Permalink
You can't be sure that if you follow the unwanted path, you'll end up doing great things for humanity. Life is too full of accidents and unforeseen turnings to predict that you'll do great things for humanity. In any case, I would not advise that you pursue a field in which you hav... Read more
Why is it ok to kill for your country no matter what the reason, but not ok to kill someone just because you don't like them? What is the difference?
Oliver Leaman
December 29, 2005
(changed December 29, 2005)
Permalink
It isn't OK to kill for your country no matter what the reason, and some think it isn't OK to kill for any reason whatsoever. Even in less dramatic circumstances few would argue that we are entitled to act without knowing why, and approving of the reason, although there might be circumsta... Read more
Are the psycho-sexual aspects of ourselves fixated from a relatively early age, so that "turn ons" are conditioned if not unalterably then in some way that fixes in ourselves certain ideas about what it is for something to be sexual in nature? Should considerations about this act as impetus to revise any aspects of the media and popular culture, including of course, pornography, which is one of the largest domains of media-culture despite being confined to less blatant forms of presentation (than, say, advertisments for "Big Macs")? Finally, I have the idea that cyber-porn (and to a lesser extent all cyber-sex) is covertly homo-erotic when men use it to get off on "straight" screen sex. This isn't entirely true, sex is sex and breasts are breasts, but the fact that a machine which could be (not unfairly) called a "boys toy" is being used as the platform for a mathematically constructed system of media exchange (viz. the world wide web) that was developed primarily by men. Crucially, the sex scenes themselves are heavily male edited, and in many of them there is little left of female sensuality (and, perhaps not coincidentally, a hugely disproportionate screenage of male/female genitilia as compares to sex in the flesh). Doesn't that amount to "getting off on" a male conception of sexuality (or one form of it), and if so, can that count as homoerotic? [Feel free to respond to all or just some of these questions]
Alan Soble
December 31, 2005
(changed December 31, 2005)
Permalink
(1) Are the psycho-sexual aspects of ourselves fixated from a relatively early age, so that "turn ons" [what we find sexually arousing] are conditioned if not unalterably then in some way that fixes in ourselves certain ideas about what it is for something to be sexual [to be sexual or to be... Read more
Hello, I was reading the answer to question 726, where Jay L. Garfield discusses Andrea Dworkin's argument about whether a woman can consent to a man's sexual advances: "The person most associated with this claim was Andrea Dworkin, though she was not alone in asserting it. The claim was a bit hyperbolic, but reflected an interesting, controversial claim. Consent, she argued, presupposes rough equality. If you are a violent person holding a gun, and ask me politely for all of my money, even if you don't threaten me, my handing it over is nonconsensual. And that is the case, on this view, even if, had you not had the gun, I would have consented, out of generosity, to give you the cash you wanted. The presence of an unequal power relationship, and the background of potential violence renders consent conceptually impossible." That may be so, but consider that I am on very friendly terms with the violent person holding a gun - that is, I have a good history with her or him and that I know he or she won't be violent if I don't comply. Wouldn't consensus be conceptually possible in this scenario? By Dworkin's reasoning, we may say that children can never consent to their parents' suggestions about their lives, since children and parents differ widely in power and knowledge. However, this seems counterintuitive, for we usually don't view parents as oppressing their children. I guess, then, my question is, doesn't Dworkin's argument horribly simplify the relationship between men and women? I agree that women are subordinated, oppressed and seen as "the second sex" in most walks of life but Dworkin's argument is a biased, faulty machinery that crudely produces conclusions she likes. Best...
Nicholas D. Smith
December 29, 2005
(changed December 29, 2005)
Permalink
I agree with you that Dworkin's arguments "horribly simplify" the relationships between men and women. But I would also say that this kind of simplification is unavoidable in arguments of the general kind she makes--from any point of view. For one thing, notice the difference in how... Read more
What is philosophical intuition? How is it different from common sense?
Nicholas D. Smith
December 29, 2005
(changed December 29, 2005)
Permalink
I suspect that "philosophical intuition" really has something to do with one's capacities to do logical and analytical reasoning. But your question really depends upon what you mean by "intuition." Plenty of the most significant and controversial philosophical theories would not qua... Read more
Is there a particular theory against the philosophical possibility of eternal life? I ask this because it seems to me that if eternal life were possible, men may lose the incentive to philosophize, hence the demise of philosophy.
Nicholas D. Smith
December 29, 2005
(changed December 29, 2005)
Permalink
I agree with Richard Heck's response, but would like to respond to the first part of this question. I think there are some fairly persuasive reasons for thinking there is no such thing as eternal life--though I doubt that an argument could be given to show its impossibility. So:
(1)... Read more
Is there pleasure in the melancholic? I like reading sad films, I enjoy solitary walks getting sad about sad things, puffing cigarettes that I know will kill me, alone in cafes, half-drunk and looking out at swarms of people buzzing around me, getting sad that I might turn out to be one of them. Is there pleasure in the melancholy? Why?
Nicholas D. Smith
December 29, 2005
(changed December 29, 2005)
Permalink
You have given a number of examples, each of which probably deserves specific responses. But as a general reaction, I think your cases do show that there certainly can be pleasures taken from things that also arouse or contribute to sadness or melancholy. There may be any number of... Read more
I live in the Northeast, U.S.A. Should I care more about someone starving in a distant U.S. state than I care about someone starving on another continent? Should the sufferer's proximity to my location or the precise form of suffering being endured affect the answer to the question?
Thomas Pogge
December 29, 2005
(changed December 29, 2005)
Permalink
It is hard to see why proximity (in the sense of physical distance) should make a difference. The kind of suffering and the nationalityof the sufferer may well be relevant, however. Both may provideevidence about your causal relation to the sufferer. And the former mayalso provide informat... Read more
Regardless of all the technological and agricultural improvements made since the end of the 18th century when Malthus wrote his essay on population, there are more people living in extreme poverty today than there were people (in total) living when his essay was published. This is consistent with what Malthus claimed: there is no way for human population centers to live within their means -- any increase in resources will inevitably lead to a rise in population until the available resources are again insufficient to maintain the population. The seemingly noble cause of ending world hunger, if doable even for a relatively short time, would ultimately lead to more poverty and hunger (barring some unknown hole in Malthus' theory). Is it ethical to help someone in need today if you are quite certain this will only cause more people to suffer later?
Thomas Pogge
December 28, 2005
(changed December 28, 2005)
Permalink
Yes, the fact you cite is consistent with what Malthus claimed. But many other facts are not. There is a strong negative correlation between countries' affluence and their fertility: The more affluent countries tend to have lower fertility, with many affluent countries having fertility rat... Read more
What flaws should one be wary of in an argument? Please explain in layman terms (I have not studied philosophy). Thanks.
Peter Lipton
December 28, 2005
(changed December 28, 2005)
Permalink
In this context, an argument is a set of claims -- the premises -- presented as a reason to accept another claim -- the conclusion. If you are checking for flaws, it is useful to distinguish two fundamentally different ways an argument can go wrong. The first is that one or more or the p... Read more