Recent Responses
What is the difference between Emotivism and Quasi-realism? Wikipedia says that Emotivism is '... a meta-ethical view that claims that ethical sentences do not express propositions but emotional attitudes', and that Quasi-realism is '... the meta-ethical view which claims that: Ethical sentences do not express propositions.Instead, ethical sentences project emotional attitudes as though they were real properties.' It is said that these two theories stand in opposition to each other.
This is not an easy question
Michael Lacewing
August 6, 2015
(changed August 6, 2015)
Permalink
This is not an easy question to answer! Part of the difficulty is that quasi-realism is a very technical theory. So I can start by saying that Wikipedia is not quite right…
Quasi-realism can be understood as a descendant of emotivism, and both theories claim that... Read more
What is the difference between "either A is true or A is false" and "either A is true or ~A is true?" I have an intuitive sense that they are two very different statements but I am having a hard time putting why they are different into words. Thank you.
Perhaps I could add something
Michael Shenefelt
August 6, 2015
(changed August 6, 2015)
Permalink
Perhaps I could add something here too—and perhaps it will be useful: You are right that there is a difference between the two statements that you offer, and the difference has become more significant with the rise of many-valued logics in the 20th and 21st cent... Read more
What is the difference between "either A is true or A is false" and "either A is true or ~A is true?" I have an intuitive sense that they are two very different statements but I am having a hard time putting why they are different into words. Thank you.
Perhaps I could add something
Michael Shenefelt
August 6, 2015
(changed August 6, 2015)
Permalink
Perhaps I could add something here too—and perhaps it will be useful: You are right that there is a difference between the two statements that you offer, and the difference has become more significant with the rise of many-valued logics in the 20th and 21st cent... Read more
How does one know when is it acceptable to break a promise? Is there something special about a vow, or is it just a social construct? I can envision various scenarios involving onerous mortgages and starving children, and my conclusion seems to be: "Well, you'll just know it when you see it". But that seems to suggest it's just based on my present whim.
I think that you are right
Michael Lacewing
August 6, 2015
(changed August 6, 2015)
Permalink
I think that you are right that there are no clear, definite rules about exactly when one may break a promise. But I don't think that this shows that whether or not it is acceptable is based on your whim.
Aristotle argued that there are only very rarely fixed rules... Read more
How does one know when is it acceptable to break a promise? Is there something special about a vow, or is it just a social construct? I can envision various scenarios involving onerous mortgages and starving children, and my conclusion seems to be: "Well, you'll just know it when you see it". But that seems to suggest it's just based on my present whim.
I think that you are right
Michael Lacewing
August 6, 2015
(changed August 6, 2015)
Permalink
I think that you are right that there are no clear, definite rules about exactly when one may break a promise. But I don't think that this shows that whether or not it is acceptable is based on your whim.
Aristotle argued that there are only very rarely fixed rules... Read more
For years, scientists like Stephen Hawking have made claims, maintaining that the awesome, sophisticated creativity of the world around us can be interpreted solely by reference to physical laws such as gravity. But could Hawking's claim is be misguided? He asks us to choose between God and the laws of physics, as if they were necessarily in mutual conflict. But contrary to what Hawking claims, physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions. What Hawking appears to have done is to make a category mistake and to confuse law with agency. His call on us to choose between God and physics is a bit like someone demanding that we choose between aeronautical engineer Sir Frank Whittle and the laws of physics to explain the jet engine. The laws of physics can explain how the jet engine works, but someone had to build the thing, put in the fuel and start it up. The jet could not have been created without the laws of physics on their own but the task of development and creation needed the genius of Whittle as its agent. Isn't the sophistication of the mechanistic laws, and science rejoices in finding such laws evidence for the sheer wonder of the creative genius of God in creating the universe?
There's a lot going on in
Stephen Maitzen
August 4, 2015
(changed August 4, 2015)
Permalink
There's a lot going on in your question, and I doubt that my response will cover all of it. But I'll say, first, that it begs the question against Hawking to demand that he explain "the awesome, sophisticated creativity of the world" if by "creativity" you mean s... Read more
The artists, writers and poets who witnessed World War I aside, why is there such an aversion to chemical weapons? Don't 'conventional' weapons kill people just as dead? Are chemical weapons more inherently immoral than conventional weapons?
I don't know much about
Allen Stairs
August 2, 2015
(changed August 2, 2015)
Permalink
I don't know much about weapons of war, so I can't be confident of the details here, but consider this thought.
Suppose an army has a choice between two kinds of weapons. The two are equally lethal, but one kills quickly while the other leads to a slow, painful death.... Read more
If we accept that caring for disabled members is an obligation of all society, is it permissible to prevent people from disabling themselves?
I’d be interested to know
Michael Cholbi
August 2, 2015
(changed August 2, 2015)
Permalink
I’d be interested to know exactly what’s motivating your question, but here’s a stab at the reasoning that might be behind it:
Suppose that a society is (collectively) obligated to care for the disabled. Caring for the disabled imposes burdens on the rest of society. B... Read more
The age of consent seems to arise because people under a certain age threshold are not capable of making informed, prudent decisions. Because of Neurology or Wisdom or otherwise. However what is to say that they are capable when past this age threshold? Consider an alien species similar to us however they live to the age of 1000 rather than 80-100 as in humans. This alien species might give the age of consent to 200 years because anyone younger is deemed not having enough knowledge to make an informed decision. When this alien species looks at us they will probably pity us for making choices below the age of 200, because we have not the wisdom nor the neurology that is required to make an informed decision. Is the age one has to make an informed decision thus meaningless?
My suspicion is that you may
Michael Cholbi
July 30, 2015
(changed July 30, 2015)
Permalink
My suspicion is that you may be holding "informed decision" to an unfairly high standard. Granted, we often do not make "informed, prudent decisions." We human beings are certainly not omniscient, and we sometimes reason badly. But plenty of decisions we make can be m... Read more
Hello, What I am about to say is a desperate call for help. I am reaching out to you so that I may be assisted with this dear worry I have been plagued with for several years… Basically, I am paranoid about what will happen to me after I die. Because of argument amongst equally learned, intelligent, capable philosophers, I can’t figure out what the afterlife (if there is one) will consist of. The reason this is an obsession and highly alarming to me is because several different religions state you must believe such and such in order to escape hell (eternal torture). You can’t simultaneously be a follower of incompatible religions, so it’s like you’re taking an eternal chance in believing anything. Moreover, it seems the superiority of one religion over the other cannot be determined. Philosophers argue about this stuff night and day, and the arguments never end...nothing is ever decided for certain. No one can be sure of anything. Must I believe that when I die, I’ll more than likely go to some sort of hell? My morals aren’t terrific, you know. This is driving me mad! It is something I dwell on ALL the time. Life is so terribly fragile, and any of us could go at any time. I’m at a higher risk of death than a lot because of heart disease problems in my genes. What is a man supposed to do in a predicament like this? You probably have beliefs about the afterlife, but how can you be SURE of them when you are aware of the other equally knowledgeable minds that don’t believe as you do--that have solid arguments for their own worldviews and against your own? You can’t say that you’re somehow superior to a whole mass of intelligent minds!
Allen Stairs offers a
Charles Taliaferro
July 30, 2015
(changed July 30, 2015)
Permalink
Allen Stairs offers a spirited reply, and an amusing last line, but I am a bit more sympathetic with your worry. You might check out the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on beliefs about the afterlife which I co-authored with William Hasker. There is a terrifi... Read more