Recent Responses
Are there any (good, interesting, significant, etc) secular arguments against abortion?
Probably the most well-known
Allen Stairs
May 16, 2015
(changed May 16, 2015)
Permalink
Probably the most well-known secular argument against abortion is by Don Marquis. The paper is called Why Abortion is Immoral (sorry I don't have a link to a non-paywalled version) and the argument goes roughly like this:
Start by asking why death is a misfortune. Marquis... Read more
I want to get rich. Can studying philosophy help with my goal?
For sure. Every panelist on
Allen Stairs
May 15, 2015
(changed May 16, 2015)
Permalink
For sure. Every panelist on AskPhilosophers is fabulously wealthy.
(I'd offer a more serious answer, but I'm too busy making money.)
Log in to post comments
Why is relative identity an unpopular theory? What I read generally asserts that it is not accepted by very many philosophers, but some of the examples don't seem defective at first blush, like two copies of Animal Farm being identical stories but distinct books. What don't philosophers seem to like about the theory of relative identity?
I'm not sure why philosophers
Stephen Maitzen
May 14, 2015
(changed May 14, 2015)
Permalink
I'm not sure why other philosophers dislike the notion of relative identity. I find it unattractive because (1) it's a more complicated notion than absolute identity and (2) I don't see how the added complication solves any problems or illuminates any distinction... Read more
Some people argue that a 15 year old should be required by their parents to have an abortion because they also can't get an ear piercing or attend an R rated movie without their parents permission. Is that a good argument?
I agree with Prof. Stairs:
Stephen Maitzen
May 13, 2015
(changed May 13, 2015)
Permalink
I agree with Prof. Stairs: even if we fix the argument's conflation of permissions and requirements, the analogies to piercings and 'R'-rated movies aren't close enough to abortion. We need to consider procedures that are of roughly equal invasiveness and seriousness.
So... Read more
Recently, Indonesia executed several people, mostly foreigners, for drug trafficking. This has been justified on at least two grounds: 1) Countries have diffferent norms and political cultures, and it's (Western) arrogance to tell them their way of doing things is wrong. 2) The executed knew the risk they were taking and the consequences of breaking another nation's laws, therefore, they got what they deserved and have only themselves to blame. Any comments? Thanks.
Two comments.
Allen Stairs
May 10, 2015
(changed May 10, 2015)
Permalink
Two comments.
The first is that if you have a good reason to think something is wrong, the fact that it happened in another country or culture isn't a reason not to say so. I'm happy to put the shoe on the other foot. If there are practices in my country (the US) that someone from elsew... Read more
I know that there have been numerous contributions in philosophy discussing the divisibility of matter, e.g. Zeno's paradoxes. Are there contemporary debates regarding this topic still? Do you think it's plausible that matter can be divided infinitely? When we hear of experiments in modern physics where particles are collided and break into smaller pieces, does this constitute a division of matter? I understand I've asked a lot here. I hope the questions are related to each other enough that they can be addressed in a single response. Thank you!
_Are there contemporary
Stephen Maitzen
May 10, 2015
(changed May 10, 2015)
Permalink
Are there contemporary debates regarding this topic still?
To judge from the SEP article on mereology, the infinite divisibility of matter is indeed a topic of contemporary debate. See especially section 3.4 here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mereology.
Do you think it... Read more
Justice Scalia famously stated that crosses on graves have, well, crossed-over from an overtly religious symbol to one that may represent any dead soldier. How do philosophers treat such claims? How do we establish when religious practices, symbols, rituals, etc. have entered the secular public domain to the extent that the law can recognize them as such?
I'll have to admit that I
Allen Stairs
May 7, 2015
(changed June 20, 2015)
Permalink
I'll have to admit that I think Justice Scalia is full of prunes on this one, as my grandmother would have said. And I think the case was decided wrongly by the Supreme Court. (Here's an account of the decision that's not just neutral, but still... http://www.patheos.c... Read more
If there is no god, why do people behave in a moral and ethical manner? One answer might be long-term self-interest: if you never tell a lie, for example, you will develop a favorable reputation among other people which will allow you to participate in all sorts of activities of which you would never be a part otherwise. Another answer might be "big picture" self-interest: people usually achieve more and have higher standards of living when they collaborate compared to when they compete: "competition" only works as a motivator when embedded in a broader collaborative structure first (i.e., if everyone plays by the rules, we aren't deliberately trying to injure a competitor because we don't want them trying to injure us and so we all place voluntary limits on our behaviors to promote a better outcome for all). While these answers are all well and good, there seems to be something missing: to be motivated SOLELY by self-interest, no matter how you dress it up, seems like a somewhat barren life. People also have passions, which one might consider to be supra-rational: while they may not be fully "rational" they are not "ir-"rational they transcend rationality. Passions, not logic, provide us the determination to persevere in the face of obstacles. People who believe that there is something greater than the self, of which we are a part, can draw upon this belief for a sense of connectedness with other people that provides a backdrop against which many great things can be accomplished. Much of what I just wrote, however, seems to me only to make sense in a spiritual tradition. If I understand correctly, atheists claim to reject these traditions. Other than "enlightened self-interest", is there anything else that would motivate an atheist to behave in a moral and ethical manner?
If we are only molecules in
Stephen Maitzen
May 7, 2015
(changed May 7, 2015)
Permalink
If we are only molecules in motion and a few hundred thousand years from now, the world and history will vanish, then are our moral rules any more than the rules of a club?
With all due respect to Prof. Marino, the antecedent of that question is tendentious. According to... Read more
If there is no god, why do people behave in a moral and ethical manner? One answer might be long-term self-interest: if you never tell a lie, for example, you will develop a favorable reputation among other people which will allow you to participate in all sorts of activities of which you would never be a part otherwise. Another answer might be "big picture" self-interest: people usually achieve more and have higher standards of living when they collaborate compared to when they compete: "competition" only works as a motivator when embedded in a broader collaborative structure first (i.e., if everyone plays by the rules, we aren't deliberately trying to injure a competitor because we don't want them trying to injure us and so we all place voluntary limits on our behaviors to promote a better outcome for all). While these answers are all well and good, there seems to be something missing: to be motivated SOLELY by self-interest, no matter how you dress it up, seems like a somewhat barren life. People also have passions, which one might consider to be supra-rational: while they may not be fully "rational" they are not "ir-"rational they transcend rationality. Passions, not logic, provide us the determination to persevere in the face of obstacles. People who believe that there is something greater than the self, of which we are a part, can draw upon this belief for a sense of connectedness with other people that provides a backdrop against which many great things can be accomplished. Much of what I just wrote, however, seems to me only to make sense in a spiritual tradition. If I understand correctly, atheists claim to reject these traditions. Other than "enlightened self-interest", is there anything else that would motivate an atheist to behave in a moral and ethical manner?
If we are only molecules in
Stephen Maitzen
May 7, 2015
(changed May 7, 2015)
Permalink
If we are only molecules in motion and a few hundred thousand years from now, the world and history will vanish, then are our moral rules any more than the rules of a club?
With all due respect to Prof. Marino, the antecedent of that question is tendentious. According to... Read more
I'm struggling to reconcile David Hume's critiques of science and religion. On the one hand, he suggests that our application of cause/effect to natural phenomena is problematic since it ammounts to simply equating the present with the past. On the other hand, he warns us against believing in second-hand accounts of miracles since they are interruptions of natural law. Isn't our use of causal reasoning the way we determine the characteristics of natural law? Is this an inconsistency in his argument and, if so, does he address it anywhere?
If I may complicate things a
Stephen Maitzen
May 7, 2015
(changed May 7, 2015)
Permalink
If I may complicate things a bit: I don't question the scholarly accuracy of Prof. Baxter's reply on behalf of Hume, but I'd point out that he attributes to Hume a handful of inductive claims, for example: "We instinctively make and believe...predictions, anyway. We can'... Read more