Recent Responses
Can someone's quality of life ever be so bad that you are justified in taking care of them against their will in order to improve it? If so, how bad does it have to be?
Thomas Pogge
November 6, 2005
(changed November 6, 2005)
Permalink
It all depends on the mental competence of the other person. If he's not very competent (a child, perhaps, or mentally disabled), then we may interfere with him even to prevent minor harms. One should never interfere with the freedom of fully competent adults in order to improve their qualit... Read more
I'm a medical doctor. I have had to do CPR (Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation) in public, outside of the hospital, at least six times in my life. Only one time did a patient recover partly - for another two months. It is a well-known medical fact that a very small percentage of 'resuscitated' subjects recover entirely after their heart attack. If she survives, the patient will often be reduced to a vegetative state. I myself would definitely not want to be administered CPR in case of a heart attack. How does my behaviour/attitude square with the Golden Rule of doing unto others as I would have them do to me? I'm Dutch, and in Holland all medical doctors are sworn in with Hippocrates' Oath, which clearly conflicts with not administering CPR. Should I stop extramural CPR, or honour my oath in spite of myself?
Thomas Pogge
November 6, 2005
(changed November 6, 2005)
Permalink
You would not want to have CPR administered to yourself. And you would also not want to be treated contrary to your wishes. In order to apply the Golden Rule, we need to know which of these two desires is controlling. I would think it is the latter. If so, you should administer CPR to those... Read more
If I own something that is essential for other people to live, like medicines, and I know that I have made it impossible for them to afford it, am I responsible for their death?
Thomas Pogge
November 6, 2005
(changed November 6, 2005)
Permalink
Yes you are. Your decision to deny others access to the life-savingdrug has led to their death. But how serious is your responsibilityfrom a moral point of view? That depends on the circumstances. Perhapsthe medicine was in short supply and you needed what you had for yourown survival or tha... Read more
"If I know I am right, I am probably wrong." Is this a true statement?
Peter Lipton
November 7, 2005
(changed November 7, 2005)
Permalink
Another necessary condition for knowledge is truth: that's another reason why, if you really do know you are right, you can not probably be wrong. But the slogan 'if I think I know I am right, I am probably wrong' could be be true. And it could be true in at least two different ways: I cou... Read more
Are average people in the first world morally obligated to help people the third world?
Thomas Pogge
November 6, 2005
(changed November 6, 2005)
Permalink
Most would recognize such an obligation as arising simply from the fact that many of them are exposed to life-threatening poverty that we can protect them from at very small cost to ourselves. The bottom sixth of the world's population live on under $100 per person per year (under $500 purch... Read more
What's the point of conceptual analysis when there's lexicography?
Peter Lipton
November 6, 2005
(changed November 6, 2005)
Permalink
Lexicography and conceptual analysis must anyway be different, since a good dictionary has lots of good definitions, while philosophers are hard pressed to give a correct conceptual analysis of any of the concepts that centrally concern them. One reason for this may be that conceptual analy... Read more
Suppose someone is thinking about killing himself. Can philosophers or philosophy give him reasons for or against doing it? Or isn't suicide a philosophical subject?
Alexander George
November 26, 2005
(changed November 26, 2005)
Permalink
Suicide is not murder unless you understand "murder" to mean "to kill a person". But we don't so understand it, as we don't usually speak of the hangman's murdering the convict, or of a soldier's murdering his enemy, or of someone's murdering in self-defense a man who was trying to ki... Read more
How can the universe always be said to have existed, when there is nothing in the universe that always existed? People, plants, planets - all these things come into existence and then decay and disappear. In other words, every thing in the universe needs a cause for its existence. God, on the other hand, needs no such cause. This is not because he is "causa sui" or "self-caused"(an absurd notion, for how can something that has no being produce it own being?), but rather, he is "sine causa" or "WITHOUT a cause". Something, after all, always had to have existed. This is the Uncaused (call it God), not the Caused (Universe), which is inherently unstable and subject to flux. Scott from Ireland.
Richard Heck
November 6, 2005
(changed November 6, 2005)
Permalink
Just to echo Joe and Alex, it's not at all clear to me why the following isn't a coherent possibility. Suppose that, for convenience, we divide time into equal intervals, says, seconds, and let's suppose that time is infinte in both directions. (That may be false, as a matter of physical fac... Read more
Does the word "universe" denote a really existing thing, or is it just a kind generic term for all the things that exist? In other words: Is "universe" like the word "team" (because teams do not really exist, but only the individuals that make up a team can be said to really exist)?
Richard Heck
November 6, 2005
(changed November 6, 2005)
Permalink
Teams, surely, cannot exist without individuals to play on them, but it isn't obvious to me, anyway, that teams don't "really" exist. It was the same team that won the World Series in 2004 as had last wonit in 1918, so there has to be something more to a team than just acollection of players... Read more
Do you think it is wrong to sell something (an idea, a product) to someone who doesn't really want it by convincing him that he does?
Richard Heck
November 6, 2005
(changed November 6, 2005)
Permalink
This question could mean two different things, depending upon what's meant by "convincing him that he does". If what's meant is that one convinces the person to want the product, so that, in the end, the person really does want it, then I don't see why that should be objectionable. People ch... Read more