Recent Responses
If someone has already been mistakenly punished for a crime they have not committed, are they then allowed to go and commit that crime (without punishment)? For example, supposing person A is charged with the murder of B but wrongly so as B was still alive. Does A then have the right, once he's finished his sentence in jail, to go and kill B? He has already been punished for it so you can't punish him twice for the same act!!
Joseph G. Moore
November 18, 2005
(changed November 18, 2005)
Permalink
No, of course not! ...or so I first thought; but then your argument moved me; but now I again think...No, of course not!A's first punishment was probably unjust--certainly unfortunate. But if A now kills B, then A should be punished anew on any of the four halfway-plausible and at-least... Read more
Does water float? Since I came up with this question, it has created quite a lot of debate as it's not as simple as it at first appears. If water doesn't float, then what is the water on the surface moving on, surely it floats as one bit of water on the top can be moving in the opposite direction to the water lower down. However, maybe water is an entity in its own right - something can't float upon itself can it? Help! From Huw Roberts, Wales, UK.
Peter Lipton
November 19, 2005
(changed November 19, 2005)
Permalink
In philosophy it's often a good idea to begin with a clear case where we are particularly confident about what the right answer is, then move to subtler cases. If the question is whether water ever floats, the clear case is ice.
Log in to post comments... Read more
If it turned out that colours had four dimensions instead of the perceived three, would that mean that colours we see now do not exist?
Joseph G. Moore
November 18, 2005
(changed November 18, 2005)
Permalink
Suppose that colors have a fourth dimension to which we, humans, are not sensitive. As a matter of fact, I gather that this is true, and that certain birds are now thought to be sensitive to just such an additional dimension. I don't see why this would challenge the existence of the col... Read more
In first year philosophy, I posed a thought experiment involving breakfast cereal that challenges concepts of God. I have since come across it in other forms, but this was the form in which I posed it. It is this: If God is omniscient, and omnipotent then man cannot have free will. The reason is this: If I have a choice of breakfast cereals to eat for breakfast tomorrow morning then God cannot tell me today which breakfast cereal I will eat, because then I may choose to eat the other breakfast cereal just to make a point. Either God does not know, and so is not omniscient; God cannot tell me, and so is not omnipotent; or I do not have the freedom to choose! I would appreciate your thoughts on this.
Alexander George
November 19, 2005
(changed November 19, 2005)
Permalink
(Perhaps this is related to one of Nick's points.) God's knowing what I will choose is compatible with my choice being free. What God might know is what I will freely choose. Perhaps your thought is that if God knows this ahead of time, then I don't have the freedom to choose otherw... Read more
Philosophy begins as a search for what constitutes a, or the, "good life". Does that concept have any meaning today and if it does (as I believe it does), why are professional philosophers (I am not a philosopher) more competent to answer it than any layperson who ponders the question? Pablo Santiago de Chile
Nicholas D. Smith
November 18, 2005
(changed November 18, 2005)
Permalink
Not all philosophy begins as a search for a/the good life, though I suppose our interest in a/the good life may nonetheless play some role. As Aristotle says (in the beginning of his Metaphysics), philosophy begins in wonder--and we can wonder about nearly anything.
I certainly don't... Read more
Why is philosophy so difficult?
Lynne Rudder Baker
March 2, 2006
(changed March 2, 2006)
Permalink
Just think of the kinds of questions that philosopher ask--about goodness and justice, knowledge and belief, meaning and reference, just to take a few samples. There are no roadmaps for answering the kinds of question that (as Nicolas D. Smith said) set you to wondering. Even what counts... Read more
Is it ethical to stay in a marriage after love is dead?
Nicholas D. Smith
November 18, 2005
(changed November 18, 2005)
Permalink
Your question seems to presuppose that love is the only reason to be in a marriage. It may be the main reason that one gets married, but I think that the kind of companionship and interconnection that married couples can generate, as a result of living together and sharing lives for... Read more
In terms of the meaning of life, I look at how humanity has managed to claw itself up from hitting each other with rocks to a fairly impressive level of civilisation. Since there is no discernible point to Mankind, perhaps just a furthering of humanity should be the aim? I try to base my morals on this ideal, as well as relying on empathy. Does the panel think that this is a reliable base for morality?
Nicholas D. Smith
November 18, 2005
(changed November 18, 2005)
Permalink
What you propose is a start, but not yet a "reliable base," as you put it. Problems lurk here: Just "furthering humanity" may in the long run actually lead our own species (and many others) into extinction--especially given our proven propensity to gooble up the earth's resources and... Read more
As a veggie, I am continually conscious that I have made a moral choice which does not fit with society's morals on the issue (in general). I believe that in this world of choice, I can have an adequate diet without the need to kill animals. What does the panel feel about this issue?
Peter Lipton
November 19, 2005
(changed November 19, 2005)
Permalink
There is a story about someone who came up to a well-known moral philosopher in a restaurant and asked him what he thought about the arguments for vegetarianism. "I've actually thought quite a bit about some of those arguments, and I'm half-convinced by them", he replied. "So I don't eat... Read more
If I am an alcoholic do I have a duty not to have children? What if I have a pretty strong history of being verbally abusive? What if I know I carry Tay-Sachs? You see where I am going here; should there be some criteria under which I am morally obliged not to have children in light of the initial conditions under which they would be living?
Nicholas D. Smith
November 18, 2005
(changed November 18, 2005)
Permalink
I stuck my neck out on another question like this, so I suppose I should go ahead and compound my earlier error by responding to this one, too.
I really think that the ethics of having children is more complicated than your examples make it. Each example seems to give a reason not to... Read more