Recent Responses

Is it morally wrong to tell children that Santa exists? Regardless of how much joy and excitement kids get from believing the Santa myth, it is an outright lie, so how can it be regarded as morally right? Should we always take the moral high ground and tell the truth where children are concerned, or should we make exceptions? When they find out the truth, aren't we teaching children that no one, not even their parents, can be trusted?

Louise Antony November 22, 2005 (changed November 22, 2005) Permalink I have a very strong opinion about this matter, one that results in my condemning some of my very best friends: I think that there are no good arguments for teaching a child to believe in Santa Claus, or for not telling the child the truth the first time he or she asks. So I quite adaman... Read more

Animals Ethics

I recently "rescued" a sea gull with a broken wing. I approached it while I was riding my bike on a very busy road filled with speeding wood-laden trucks and various other vehicles. The bird ran from me as well as it could, dragging its broken wing behind it; and as sea gulls are much more efficient at flying than walking, this was quite a feat. I managed to scare the creature off the road as well as I could, as I felt it was much safer in the fields beside the road, than on the road. Then I went home, feeling a little better with myself, as I believed I had helped the creature. The next morning I was driving my Jeep to work along the same road, and lo and behold, there was the same (at least I think it was) gull wending its way along the road, a full 3/4 kms further along from where it was the night before. It had survived a full twelve hours on a very busy roadway. I was carrying a cat cage in the back of the vehicle, and I successfully captured the bird. My philosophical quandary occurred shortly thereafter, as the local wild animal reserve, in consultation with the vet (who said the wing would never heal correctly, and the bird would be permanently disabled), made the decision that the creature should be killed by lethal injection. I, who had been the supposed hero, did not do anything further to prevent the death of the animal. My quandary? Did I do the morally "right" thing in interfering with the "natural" course of events? Should I have "rescued" the bird again from the vet who was going to kill it, as I had already interfered in the "normal" run of events by rescuing the creature in the first place? I firmly believe that in some far future time we (humans) will attain a state where all life forms will be considered sacred, and the death of any creature, caused by another either by action or inaction, will be considered an immoral thing. Believing this, I know that any person "visiting" from that future time will be morally bound by their time, as anyone from today who "visited" the past would be still bound by our beliefs and laws about murder. How should I have acted?

Joseph G. Moore November 7, 2005 (changed November 7, 2005) Permalink By my lights, both you and the vet did exactly the right things. You initially helped the bird help itself (by putting it out of harm's way), and then, when that seemed insufficient, took it to a place where you thought it could get medical attention. In my view, the vet also did the righ... Read more

Art

What - if any - is the difference between 'erotic art' and 'pornography'? Is it merely a value judgement?

Richard Heck November 7, 2005 (changed November 7, 2005) Permalink This is not an easy question, obviously, and I'm hardly in a position to distinguish these carefully. But here is one thought. Pornography, in the relevant sense of the term, is designed to arouse. That is its primary purpose, without which it would neither be produced nor consumed. Art can... Read more

Language

I recently learned a fact that I was previously unaware of. Helen Keller said, through the use of a form of sign language, that before she could us a 'type' of language she had no thought. This conception of no-thought was very intriguing to me. We are to believe that our language defines our very thoughts. So without language we wouldn't have thoughts to our self. I guess what I really want know is from a philosophical point of view are we able to think without our identity of language? Can thought be just bound to what language we speak?

Richard Heck November 7, 2005 (changed November 7, 2005) Permalink I'm no expert on Helen Keller, but I don't think this comment has the kinds of consequences mentioned here, and I'm not sure it should be trusted. Many human beings have the experience of thinking in language. Keller, obviously, wouldn't have had that ability before discovering language, an... Read more

Animals Mind

Do animals know they are mortal? Bill Reay

Richard Heck November 7, 2005 (changed November 7, 2005) Permalink Here's a more basic question: Do (non-human) animals know that they are? Do (non-human) animals have a conception of themselves? Are they, as it is put, "self-conscious"? Self-consciosuness seems to be a necessary precondition of knowledge of one's own mortality. Obviously, one need not give... Read more

Philosophy

How does the panel explain the fact that philosophy seems to have become less and less about "truth" and more and more about the constructs of "language" - such that the discipline now appears to have a closer relationship with lawyers rather than scientists. When did it all go wrong?

Jay L. Garfield November 8, 2005 (changed November 8, 2005) Permalink There's another way to think about it. For a long time (between the 17th and 19th centuries) Western philosophy was concerned with the nature of knowledge, and that interest was prosecuted by inquiry into the nature of the relation between the mind and the world. That relation was gener... Read more

Ethics Justice

Given the absence of justice for many victims, at what point does vigilante action become morally acceptable?

Richard Heck November 7, 2005 (changed November 7, 2005) Permalink I'm a little puzzled by this question. In what sense do victims get justice from the working of the criminal justice system? I ask this question in all sincerity. I know many people sincerely believe that it is one of the purposes of the criminal justice system to dispense justice to victims... Read more

Mathematics

It was said [in a Google groups <A href="http://groups.google.com/group/AskPhilosophers/browse_frm/thread/711d9119ce7b33c3?tvc=1&q=computer" target="_blank">post</A>] that "If a [mathematical] proof requires the checking of a very large but finite number of cases, far too many for a human to check, and we use a computer to perform that check, should we count the proposition as proved?" is an open question of mathematical philosophy. Why would anyone think the answer is anything but "yes"? The proof may not have desired aesthetic qualities, but no mathematician would deny its validity even though she may try to create a more pleasing proof.

Richard Heck November 7, 2005 (changed November 7, 2005) Permalink I don't have anything to add to Dan's comments, which pretty much cover the bases. But I will add another reference: Tyler Burge, "Computer Proof, A priori Knowledge, and Other Minds", Philosophical Perspectives, vol. 12, pp. 1-37, 1998. Burge's discussion ties the question asked here to ve... Read more

Religion

An atheistic blogger recently responded to a question about reincarnation by saying that he was certain that the mind's energy simply dissipates impotently, once its host (the body) is no more. Why, though, is the concept of reincarnation any more ridiculous than it is for my wireless laptop to transmit an intangible email, and for another computer to receive and reconstitute it, in a similar form though not exactly the same?

Richard Heck November 7, 2005 (changed November 7, 2005) Permalink It's also not clear why, if your mind were "cloned" in this way, the resulting creature would be you. If your thoughts and memories can be transferred in this way to another body, then they could presumably be so transferred while you remained as you are. That other person is not, I take it,... Read more

Mathematics

It was said [in a Google groups <A href="http://groups.google.com/group/AskPhilosophers/browse_frm/thread/711d9119ce7b33c3?tvc=1&q=computer" target="_blank">post</A>] that "If a [mathematical] proof requires the checking of a very large but finite number of cases, far too many for a human to check, and we use a computer to perform that check, should we count the proposition as proved?" is an open question of mathematical philosophy. Why would anyone think the answer is anything but "yes"? The proof may not have desired aesthetic qualities, but no mathematician would deny its validity even though she may try to create a more pleasing proof.

Recent Responses

Pages