Recent Responses
How can a certain bunch of atoms be more self aware than another bunch?
Good question, but I hope you
Stephen Maitzen
September 17, 2015
(changed September 17, 2015)
Permalink
Good question, but I hope you didn't intend it to be merely rhetorical.
Even at this early stage of our investigations, there's good evidence that the answer has to do with whether a given bunch of atoms composes a being that possesses a complex network of... Read more
I've read and heard some atheist philosophers (like Peter Singer) argue that it's our capacity to reason that makes us moral. But this would seem to imply that we can take advantage of people who don't exercise or do not fully have this capacity, like young children. Is this point valid?
Let's begin with the
Michael Cholbi
September 17, 2015
(changed September 17, 2015)
Permalink
Let's begin with the statement "our capacity to reason makes us moral."
Philosophers often distinguish between moral agents and moral patients. These are somewhat technical terms, but the rough idea is that an individual is a moral agent just in case that indi... Read more
Assuming that the multiverse account of the universe is true -- and every possible reality is being simultaneously played out in an infinite number of parallel universes -- am I logically forced into accepting a nihilistic outlook on life? Or is it still possible to accept the truth of the multiverse account and still rationally believe that the pursuit of life goals is both meaningful and valuable, despite the fact that every possible outcome -- or potential reality -- is unfolding somewhere in another parallel universe?
I don't think that the
Stephen Maitzen
September 17, 2015
(changed September 17, 2015)
Permalink
I don't think that the multiverse account implies that it's irrational to pursue life goals or irrational to believe that pursuing life goals is meaningful or valuable. For even if the multiverse theory is true, I take it that you yourself are confined to on... Read more
what are the requirements for knowledge?
You'll find your question
Stephen Maitzen
September 17, 2015
(changed September 17, 2015)
Permalink
You'll find your question very thoroughly taken up in the SEP entry on the analysis of knowledge. As you'll see there, some philosophers go so far as to reject your question on the grounds that knowledge can't profitably be analyzed into other concepts. E... Read more
Do philosophers make good lawyers? If not is that due to a fault in the legal profession or philosophy itself?
It's probably hard to
Michael Lacewing
September 14, 2015
(changed September 14, 2015)
Permalink
It's probably hard to generalise, since there are any number of other traits that make someone a good lawyer, apart from those shared with doing philosophy. However, I understand that law firms are very interested in taking people who have done a philosophy... Read more
Should moral obligations be constructed to fit within the real world, or within a hypothetical utopia? For example, I recognize that utilitarianism is the system most likely to be enacted by a ruling majority, because it will favor that majority, should my moral obligations reflect utilitarianism, even though I do not think it is the right system?
Morality must, I think, be
Michael Lacewing
September 14, 2015
(changed September 14, 2015)
Permalink
Morality must, I think, be something that can guide our choices and actions. And to do this, it must take account of what is realistic - morality needs to be morality for human beings, with the kind of psychology and concerns that we have. But what is 'reali... Read more
If it is not immoral to shoot dead an intruder into one's house without asking questions, why would it be immoral to shoot dead an intruder into one's country?
Some folks are enamored of
Michael Shenefelt
September 12, 2015
(changed September 12, 2015)
Permalink
Some folks are enamored of the idea of “shooting dead an intruder in one’s house without asking questions,” but I’m not one of them.
Necessary self-defense has always been a basic part of common law, but it is quite another thing to kill a man or woman on... Read more
I recently read that the majority of philosophers are moral realists. I either do not understand moral realism or, if I do understand it, I don't buy it. Below I describe how I view the ideas of 'right' and 'wrong.' Is my understanding incompatible with moral realism? And how would you critique my understanding? Also if you want to give a version of moral realism that is easy to understand that would be greatly appreciated. Let’s say that I find test taking difficult. I declare: test taking is difficult. This statement is relational in nature. I am saying that because of various elements of my personal makeup the action of taking a test is difficult for me. It would be incorrect of me to say that test taking was objectively difficult. Some, as a result of various differing elements of their personal makeup, may find test taking easy. It is hypothetically possible to enumerate all of the events in my life as a child and the specific neuroanatomical structures that cause test taking to be difficult for me. If those qualities and structures were altered test taking could become easy. Descriptors like ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ can be thought of in the same way. They describe an action’s relation to a person. If I say, “punching a child in the face is wrong,” the same analysis can be done to find the experiences and structural aspects of my brain that lead to this statement. If those experiences and structures were changed I could say, “Punching a child in the face is right.” Moral descriptors simply show my personal feelings about an action because of my specific history.
Let's start with "test taking
Allen Stairs
September 11, 2015
(changed September 11, 2015)
Permalink
Let's start with "test taking is difficult." There's a difference between "test taking is difficult for me" and "test taking is difficult." If what I mean is just that I personally find test taking difficult, then simply saying "test taking is diffi... Read more
Are all political systems equal, meaning they bring out the goods that we all want in our society, when ideally practiced, or some would necessarily come out better than others just by the fact of their nature, arrangement and constitution? For instance, I once held the belief that communism is an equally good way of a government as democracy if it is ideally practiced, but I now doubt this point of view. Do I have good reasons to doubt it?
You haven't told us your
André Carus
September 10, 2015
(changed March 18, 2016)
Permalink
You haven't told us your reasons for doubting it, so that's hard to answer. But neither "communism" nor "democracy" is a sufficiently well-defined concept to be of any use for the important question you want to raise. First, it's essential to distinguish between... Read more
For many years, I believed that I was responsible for having injured someone, and I accepted that. However, due to extenuating circumstances, while I believed that I was indeed responsible for having caused this injury, I was unable to feel guilty for it, and wondered why I was so callous. Decades later, I learned that I had NOT injured this individual after all! While I felt relieved to learn this, I also feel that it doesn't really absolve me of my apparent callousness during all those years when I'd thought I really HAD hurt her. In other words, I feel rather guilty now for NOT having felt guilty in the past! Philosophically and ethically speaking, what do you think?
Ethically speaking, I'd say
Michael Cholbi
September 10, 2015
(changed September 10, 2015)
Permalink
Ethically speaking, I'd say that your present guilt at not having felt guilt in the past speaks positively of your own moral character.
As it turns out, you did not in fact have reason to feel guilt in the past because you had not injured another person... Read more