Recent Responses
Philosophers / Journalism / Truth If we can agree upon the premiss that Man is not a solitary creature and that Man wants to belong to a group, why isn't there more movement towards getting the mass-media to use this longing to propel mankind to a higher level by 'punishing' (exposing) the Bad and 'rewarding' (admiring) the Good? Is this at all possible, you think? And if not, why not? As far as I am aware there is not a single major/popular newspaper or news program or internet site that reports a selection of objectively gathered news in a framework of comparison to the eternal value of 'Good vs Bad' on which the great philosophers agree. For example: Only reports (aknowledge and admire) of true 'good' deeds - esp. from role models - and ignore all the other trivial actions (non-news) as much as possible. Sorry for my poor English. Please translate into proper English ... Compliments for the site!!!
Nicholas D. Smith
December 9, 2005
(changed December 9, 2005)
Permalink
I suppose that at least part of an answer to your question would come from a clearer picture of what we take to be the proper role of journalism (or the mass media). Your question seems to suppose that it is the proper role of the media to "propel mankind to a higher level." But why s... Read more
I'm not sure who made the claim, but I read that during the 1970s feminist movement some claimed that all sex was rape. Why did that person think that women could never have consensual sex?
Andrew N. Carpenter
December 9, 2005
(changed December 9, 2005)
Permalink
I associate recent defenses of this claim with criticisms of "sex positive feminism," which stresses ways that embracing and affirming their their own sexualities can help feminists to resist the patriarchy and can empower themselves and others; the basic criticism by MacKinnon and o... Read more
If Cheese is made of bacteria culture, and bacteria is alive, is it wrong to eat cheese and yogurt? Or plants and anything else that is alive? If so, why do we have laws to protect people, animals, and other multi-organism beings, but not bacteria, which plays just as inportant, or even a more important role, than say a cat?
Peter S. Fosl
December 30, 2005
(changed December 30, 2005)
Permalink
What role? Not the role of my companion. What makes a role "important"? Note that much of the "role" bacteria plays is that of food for other organisms. Like that of Titus Andronicus, some important roles end in suffering and death.So, I don't think the concept of "important role" will e... Read more
Is there a moral difference between killing a newly born baby and having an abortion? To be consistent, do we have to say either abortion/infanticide is morally wrong OR that abortion/killing a newborn can be morally permitted if the circumstances are right?
Andrew N. Carpenter
December 9, 2005
(changed December 9, 2005)
Permalink
The view that Matthew articulates--that the moment of birth is not morally significant in a way affects deeply the moral status of the newborn infant--is a popular one, but it has been challenged by some. For example, the feminist philosopher Mary Anne Warren argues that birth is mora... Read more
How do you know that you know something? Isn't everything a perception? Even science assumes that the world is real and the senses convey truth about the world--and perhaps even more. If everything is perception, then how does one leap to the level of finally "knowing" something.
Peter Lipton
December 9, 2005
(changed December 9, 2005)
Permalink
You can't think without thinking, but fortunately it doesn't follow that you can only think about thinking. There are wonderful philosophical questions about how we perform the feats of representing things in the wolrd and of distinguishing correct from incorrect representations; but the th... Read more
Why is it important to know the truth and falsity of a proposition?
Peter Lipton
December 9, 2005
(changed December 9, 2005)
Permalink
Also because you want to know what the world is like (even when your life doesn't depend on it) and only true propositions tell you that. To have any beliefs at all is to manifest an interest in the truth and falsity of propositions.
Log in to post comments... Read more
I'm not sure who made the claim, but I read that during the 1970s feminist movement some claimed that all sex was rape. Why did that person think that women could never have consensual sex?
Andrew N. Carpenter
December 9, 2005
(changed December 9, 2005)
Permalink
I associate recent defenses of this claim with criticisms of "sex positive feminism," which stresses ways that embracing and affirming their their own sexualities can help feminists to resist the patriarchy and can empower themselves and others; the basic criticism by MacKinnon and o... Read more
Do you think it is ethical to have romantic desires for people with good looks? I know the obvious (pop culture) answer is yes. One may even assert further that it is natural to do so. However, my point then is that some desires, albeit natural, are unethical. (If I don't have money on me and I am hungry, I may feel the urge to steal some food.) And even though most people may feel that it is okay, the general public may be very often wrong. My reasoning is: (1) We should evaluate people only on their choices and not on conditions they haven't achieved by making choices. (2) People don't choose to look good or bad. Conclusion: Therefore, it is unethical to grant people ANY advantage based on their looks. A friend of mine, against this argument, tells me that for instance, a mathematician has not chosen to be born with her talent, so we shouldn't also value her mathematical works. This seems like an inextricable tangle! Thanks.
Alan Soble
December 9, 2005
(changed December 9, 2005)
Permalink
The question begins: "Do you think it is ethical to have romantic desires for people with good looks?" The questioner then constructs a syllogism that concludes: "it is unethical to grant people ANY advantage based on their looks." Perhaps this particular conclusion is right, i.e., the syllogi... Read more
If no one ever loves me during my lifetime - if I don't ever have a relationship - will I have not lived properly? Is love that important to life, or is it something you can choose to engage in if you like? Thank you.
Richard Heck
December 11, 2005
(changed December 11, 2005)
Permalink
I wonder whether the deeper question isn't one to which Nicholas alludes: Can I have lived a good life—not if I've never been loved but—if I've never loved?
Log in to post comments
I have read that there exists a Buddhist belief that one's incarnations might not occur in chronological order: that is, I might die and be reincarnated in what currently appears to me to be the past. Following this line of thought, would there be any logical inconsistency with or contradiction of Buddhist belief in the mechanism or purpose of reincarnation if I were to suppose that I might encounter this other incarnation during my lifetime, or even that many or all living things are various incarnations of one entity?
Jay L. Garfield
December 9, 2005
(changed December 9, 2005)
Permalink
I work in Buddhist philosophy. This is news to me.
Log in to post comments