Recent Responses
If a customer walks into a store and pulls a toy gun on the owner as a prank resulting in the owner thinking it is a real gun and suffering a fatal heart attack, then is the customer morally responsible for his death? If so, what ought his punishment be? Should it be less if the owner is in his late eighties and the customer attempted CPR?
Charles Taliaferro
February 5, 2015
(changed February 5, 2015)
Permalink
Great set of questions! You put your question in terms of morality rather than legality, but it might be worth first noting the legal angle. Basically, the law would attach responsibility and the consequences of the act based on what reasonable people would do and how they would inter... Read more
Do most philosophers take the Paul and Patricia Churchland's eliminative materialism seriously? I'm concerned about the current state of philosophy of mind in that it seems that at least some people take seriously the suggestion that e.g. beliefs don't exist (and that they are believed in in a theoretical manner). So, again, how popular is the Churchland's eliminative materialism in contemporary philosophy of mind?
Stephen Maitzen
February 4, 2015
(changed February 4, 2015)
Permalink
I'm not sure why you regard it as a worrisome sign about current philosophy of mind that some of its practitioners take eliminative materialism (EM) seriously. At worst, it would show that some philosophers regard EM as far more plausible than it really is, but even then I don't see how t... Read more
Have you ever changed your mind about a major philosophical problem or theory and did you feel that it was a waste of time defending your previous position?
Stephen Maitzen
February 4, 2015
(changed February 4, 2015)
Permalink
Yes. No. The time I spent defending my previous position -- against what I now regard as decisive objections -- helped me to see why a different position is more plausible, and it helped me to adopt the new position without having to worry that I hadn't given my previous position a fair s... Read more
Are feminists (who subscribe to the view) right to claim that all men are necessarily sexist? Perhaps it makes sense to limit the scope of the claim to a particular country, say within the UK. Presumably the sexism of men in few examples of matriarchal societies, if indeed they are sexist, would be different from the sexism we're familiar with. As a man, I would not care to insist that I am not sexist in various ways. My morality is egalitarian but it is no doubt at odds with my attitudes and behaviour. That applies to gender just as it applies to other ways we distinguish sets of people (or subjects of moral concern). The problem I have with the assertion is that it seems to take gender (or sex for the transphobic flavours of feminism) as the essential dividing line between people. Aren't there all sorts of predicates that group people into different sets, some more privileged than others? 'Born-in-the-UK' vs. 'Born-in-Malawi'; 'disabled' vs. 'fit'; 'socially anxious' vs. 'charismatic'. In many cases, the privilege conferred by belonging to one of these groups is far greater than that conferred by maleness. Perhaps the idea is that gender interactions play such a fundamental role in our lives, and are buttressed by social institutions, that males unavoidably adopt gender prejudice in a way that doesn't apply in other cases. I suspect that similar arguments could be made for other cases. If so, it will be difficult to defend the assertion without expanding it into a broader claim. They could just bite the bullet. They could claim that everyone in any privileged group with the relevant social reinforcements is necessarily prejudiced against the underprivileged group. That seems implausible.
Louise Antony
January 31, 2015
(changed January 31, 2015)
Permalink
I don't know of any feminist writer who would assent to the claim that "all men are sexist." I seriously encourage you to think about where you got the idea that it is common for feminists to think such a thing. Feminists have had always had to contend with people caricaturing or willfull... Read more
People from the distant past are forgiven for believing that the earth is flat or that the sun orbits around it, because they lived in an era when science was less advanced; and it would have been pretty difficult for a lay person back then to figure this stuff out on her own. Is morality like science in this way? Is it understandable that 18th-century whites believed blacks were subhuman, and are they less culpable for the crimes of slavery as a result?
Charles Taliaferro
January 29, 2015
(changed January 29, 2015)
Permalink
Interesting analogies and interesting questions! Two very modest initial observations:The idea that most in the past believed the earth is flat is open to question; there is an interesting book called (something like) the myth of a flat earth. Another point that is a bit less modest:... Read more
Would Plato have supported fascism in its twentieth century incarnations? Isn't his fascism implied in his strong support of the idea of the nation state and the rule of philosopher kings?
Nickolas Pappas
January 29, 2015
(changed January 29, 2015)
Permalink
This is an old question about Plato’s Republic, and it’s something of an evergreen, because every serious contemporary reader who goes through the Republic’s proposal for a better state will notice the similarity between some features of that proposal and features of modern totalitarian s... Read more
What is the difference between determinism and the principle of sufficient reason? Thanks, Mark
Jonathan Westphal
January 29, 2015
(changed January 29, 2015)
Permalink
Hi Mark,
The principle of sufficient reason, due to Leibniz, states that there is always a reason why some particular thing happens, rather than some other thing. This does not immediately or obviously pose a threat to freedom. Note that "reason" does not mean the same as "cause", altho... Read more
Is "doing" philosophy a series of back and forth arguments? If so, then just who is the jury that decides? If a group of experienced analytic professors debates one Ayn Rand follower with no academic training, and repeated population samples find the Randian more convincing, then just who is right?
Stephen Maitzen
January 29, 2015
(changed January 29, 2015)
Permalink
If so, then just who is the jury that decides? ...then just who is right?As I see it, those two questions don't go hand-in-hand. Which side in a debate has the better reasons isn't something that a jury (in any sense of 'jury') can decide. It's not like legal guilt, which is something tha... Read more
Is it fair to label childhood religious indoctrination as abuse ? at the moment in any given society it's seen as the norm , I often wonder will future generations look back in astonishment at this practice .
Allen Stairs
January 27, 2015
(changed January 27, 2015)
Permalink
I agree with my co-panelist that it's hard to peg this as abuse. But I'd like to focus on a somewhat different issue: the word "indoctrination" is being used to mean an illegitimate way of inculcating beliefs. That's fine, and isn't my issue. But the notion of "religious indoctrination" is l... Read more
Is it fair to label childhood religious indoctrination as abuse ? at the moment in any given society it's seen as the norm , I often wonder will future generations look back in astonishment at this practice .
Allen Stairs
January 27, 2015
(changed January 27, 2015)
Permalink
I agree with my co-panelist that it's hard to peg this as abuse. But I'd like to focus on a somewhat different issue: the word "indoctrination" is being used to mean an illegitimate way of inculcating beliefs. That's fine, and isn't my issue. But the notion of "religious indoctrination" is l... Read more