Recent Responses
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
Many coutries of the world are populated by the descendents of aggressive invaders, but we do not hold these people responsible for the atrocities their descendents committed. For example, most reasonable people would not blame modern Americans for the genocide of the Native Americans. How many generations does this cleansing process take? Are a second generation of settlers whose parents took their homeland through violence already blameless?
Jay L. Garfield
December 9, 2005
(changed December 9, 2005)
Permalink
It is probably useful to distinguish blame from responsibility. One may not be to blame for a set of actions taken by one's ancestors, but if one benefits from them, and another is harmed by them, one might still morally owe reparations. For example, suppose that my parents stole all of y... Read more
My understanding is that Buddhists believe that the self does not really exist, but that reincarnation does. If the self does not exist, what is it that Buddhists believe is reincarnated?
Jay L. Garfield
December 9, 2005
(changed December 9, 2005)
Permalink
Excellent question. The first thing to say is that there are many schools of thought within the world of Buddhist philosophy, and there are divergences of views within Buddhism on this question. I will give you two answers, each of which is adopted by a significant number of Buddhist phi... Read more
Is it, in general, better to take actions that could be described (variably, according to your moral temper) as sinful, or wrong, or regrettable, "in your stride", rather than feel guilt if it is the case that guilt will not diminish the probability of its happening again? Is guilt something irrational in the sense that we would really be better to (i) rid ourselves of it (ii) discourage aspects of the upbringing of children which conditions this response in them, so long as there are other ways to disincentivize harmful behaviour?
Jyl Gentzler
December 8, 2005
(changed December 8, 2005)
Permalink
If you regard guilty feelings as a form of self-punishment, then it is reasonable to ask whetherthere isa less painful way to achieve the same positive effects. But I agreewith Hilary Bok that feelings of guilt are not self-inflictedpunishment. She writes: “If we care about living by our sta... Read more
How do consequentialists justify what the consequence of an action is? If you save a man from drowning who goes on to become a serial killer, I don't think it's right to say that your action had this consequence. Where do you draw the line between action-consequence pairs? Don't consequences of actions lead to actions themselves?
Lynne Rudder Baker
December 8, 2005
(changed December 8, 2005)
Permalink
I think that you have put your finger on a big problem with consequentialism: There is no way to draw a line between consequences that "count" that those that don't; and there's no way to draw a line between consequences that it was reasonable to expect, and those that no one could ha... Read more
I was recently pulled into an office at work with a couple of loss prevention agents and they proceeded to let me know that they are talking to all managers about what exactly their role is. I am a manager at a very big retail brand. After we discussed what exactly their role is (which I already know), I felt like they were getting to something. They suddenly started talking about trust and how the company trusts all of their employees, sometimes that trust is broken when some employees decide to steal. I got very uncomfortable and asked what this is about and they let me know that a week previous $20 dollars was missing out of our petty cash and that they have me and another person who was our lead cashier. Any manager that opens the store must count petty cash with our lead cashiers, so there are always two people present. They proceeded to ask if I have ever taken any money from the company or put anything in my pocket. I said absolutely not. I have no reason to steal. They said that they have video. I said that is not true, due to the fact that I did not steal any money. I asked to see the video and they said they did not have to show me the tape, I said you can't show because it doesn't exist. I never stole anything. After about 45 minutes of them tring to get me to say I took $20 dollars, they said they were done with the investigation and that I could go back to the floor. I said no I am not going to the floor until I say a few things to them. I let them know that this is so humiliating, and this hinders my crediblity and everything I have worked hard for. I know that I did not steal $20 dollars as I make a lot of money to risk my job for $20 dollars. They need to investigate more and interrogate the right person. It has been 2 weeks now and I have not heard anything, I am still working and love my job. What are my rights in a situation like this?
David Brink
December 8, 2005
(changed December 8, 2005)
Permalink
I don't know what your legal rights are. If you are interested, you should consult a lawyer. However, I can understand your outrage and humiliation. As you tell it, their accusation was false and lacked probable cause. They also lied in the course of interrogating you, apparently with the... Read more
Is it, in general, better to take actions that could be described (variably, according to your moral temper) as sinful, or wrong, or regrettable, "in your stride", rather than feel guilt if it is the case that guilt will not diminish the probability of its happening again? Is guilt something irrational in the sense that we would really be better to (i) rid ourselves of it (ii) discourage aspects of the upbringing of children which conditions this response in them, so long as there are other ways to disincentivize harmful behaviour?
Jyl Gentzler
December 8, 2005
(changed December 8, 2005)
Permalink
If you regard guilty feelings as a form of self-punishment, then it is reasonable to ask whetherthere isa less painful way to achieve the same positive effects. But I agreewith Hilary Bok that feelings of guilt are not self-inflictedpunishment. She writes: “If we care about living by our sta... Read more
Will good things happen to a person if they do good? Does karma exist? So in other words: If one share with the world everything they have without expecting good to happen to them in return, will great things happen for them anyways?
Andrew N. Carpenter
December 8, 2005
(changed December 8, 2005)
Permalink
Surely not every good action will be recognized or rewarded by others, but most people would benefit from living in a world where many people perform good acts and so contributing to the existence of such a world might be a good goal to strive toward even if you are moved neither by a... Read more
Is it sensible to think that time is more fundamental than space, because one can just close one's eyes and relive memories, going back in time or prospectively go forward in time to predict something, without actually changing your position in space?
Douglas Burnham
January 29, 2006
(changed January 29, 2006)
Permalink
The thesis that time is more fundamental than space is not uncommon among philosophers -- although the significance attached to this, and the meaning of 'fundamental' varies widely. At least arguably, Aristotle, Leibniz, Kant and Heidegger, are committed to some variety of this claim.
Kan... Read more
Even though it has been strongly argued that divine foreknowledge doesn't negate free will, allow me to ask the question another way. How could God know our decisions if they are truly free? To know the outcome of something is to imply contingency (and determinism). To put it another way, if a third party can know the nature of an individual then that individual cannot be the author of his nature.
Andrew N. Carpenter
December 7, 2005
(changed December 7, 2005)
Permalink
The compatibility or incompatibility of divine omniscience and mortal freedom interests me a lot, although the concept of the "author of one's own nature" strikes me as relatively unclear and probably not that useful for investigating this.
Sean sketches out one answer that may be sat... Read more