Recent Responses
The Philippines has recently experiences the most devastating storm, Yolanda, in its history. The most affected areas of the country were wiped out and almost all sources of food and water became scarce. Looting became common in those areas. I honestly believe that stealing is wrong, but looting, which can be defined as stealing in the most extreme situations like those of life-and-death, seems a rather different case. My question then is this: is looting ever morally justified?
Charles Taliaferro
October 24, 2014
(changed October 24, 2014)
Permalink
I express concern for all involved: the owners, looters, bi-standers.... I have experienced times of scarcity and turmoil, but I am keenly aware that I am reading and responding to you in a coffee shop where conditions seem peaceful and I worry about being presumptuous in addressing s... Read more
What's the difference between understanding an opponent's argument, and agreeing with it? What prevents me from saying that if my opponent disagrees with my argument, he must misunderstand it?
Stephen Maitzen
October 23, 2014
(changed October 23, 2014)
Permalink
Nothing prevents you from saying that, but then nothing prevents you from being wrong when you say it. If your argument is deductive, you might make progress by asking your opponent which (if any) premise in your argument he/she finds implausible and which (if any) inference in your argum... Read more
Are 'dangerous' and 'aesthetically ugly' one and the same thing? I read somewhere once, that arachnophobia evolved as a defence mechanism against dangerous spiders. Even though most spider species are harmless, this evolved response is still there, as it is better to avoid all spiders, even the harmless ones to avoid being bitten by the really deadly ones. Seeing as this aesthetic disgust and fear arose for the purpose of keeping one safe, and very few spiders are actually dangerous, would it be incorrect to view the harmless ones as ugly? Similarly, there are some dangerous animals I consider quite beautiful: tigers, for example. Would it be incorrect to view them as beautiful because they are dangerous? Basically, what I'm trying to ask is, because perception of ugliness evolved to keep us from danger, is danger synonymous with ugliness and is any visual beauty we ascribe to a dangerous animal simply an illusion? Conversely, are non-dangerous animals that we find ugly actually visually beautiful even if we do not perceive them as such?
Allen Stairs
October 23, 2014
(changed October 23, 2014)
Permalink
I think the answer is pretty clear and is implicit in things you've said. Yes: something dangerous can be beautiful. Tigers would be a widely-accepted example. "Dangerous Beauty" isn't just the name of a movie that got a 70% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes. It's an idea that's something of a... Read more
I recently saw "Gone Girl" (spoiler alert!) and have been reading articles about the portrayal of its female antagonist, who is manipulative and psychotic. Some argue that this portrayal is problematic, since it plays into misogynistic stereotypes about women. In response, others argue that while such pernicious stereotypes do exist, it must surely be permissible to create a character who is both female and psychotic--indeed, to insist that this character type just can't exist would be sexist itself. <br> Both arguments seem plausible to me, but I'm not sure how to reconcile them. Yes, it's bad to perpetuate negative stereotypes. At the same time, we must have some freedom to create characters that exemplify such stereotypes. Women are sometimes psychotic--we should be able to write about that. But then it seems like we never have justification to criticize any fiction at all, since this kind of defense may always be invoked in any particular case.
Nickolas Pappas
October 16, 2014
(changed October 16, 2014)
Permalink
I think it's hard to answer this question without going into the details of particular narrative or representational works. It's an important question, but maybe not one for which a decisive philosophical answer is possible.
Let me point to one step in your message. You write of creatin... Read more
Is it equally, less, or more immoral for a husband/boyfriend to cheat on his wife/girlfriend than vice versa? Is ethics solely an exercise in logic or is there room for socio-psycho-evolutionary factors?
Charles Taliaferro
October 11, 2014
(changed October 11, 2014)
Permalink
You have raised a question that goes to the heart of one of the most serious relationships: what is the moral role of fidelity and respect in terms of sexual relationships? For many of us in 'the west' the 'cheating' would be equally wrong for a male or female. Just as it would be eq... Read more
Are moral theories subject to the principle of falsifiability? thanks Luca from Italy
Charles Taliaferro
October 11, 2014
(changed October 11, 2014)
Permalink
Dear Luca from Italy- When the topic of a principle of falsifiability came into philosophy in the 20th century it was used principally in reference to empirical experiences or observations that involved the senses or were derived from the senses. So, the question of whether a moral th... Read more
As technology develops, do you think it will ever make sense to say that a computer "knows" things?
William Rapaport
October 10, 2014
(changed October 10, 2014)
Permalink
That depends, of course, on what you mean by "know".On one well-known, though flawed, definition, to know that P is to have a justified true belief that P. Suppose that you are willing to say that a computer believes-true a proposition P if P is true and the computer has (a representat... Read more
A there any compelling engagements one can deploy to counter existential nihilism -- i.e. the view that life (both in terms of individuals or in terms of the totality of humankind) has no intrinsic meaning or value, and that any value/meaning we attribute to our lives and those of others is wholly subjective and will evaporate with our passing? A few pointers on how to counter this -- I think fairly commonly held -- view, as well as where I could find out more, would be really helpful!
Stephen Maitzen
October 10, 2014
(changed October 10, 2014)
Permalink
The view you'd like to counter seems to have two parts:
(1) Life, both in terms of individuals and in terms of the totality of humankind, has no intrinsic meaning or value.
(2) Any value or meaning we attribute to our lives and those of others is wholly subjective and will evaporate with... Read more
Philosophers: Is an artist's intention in a painting relevant to the assessment of the quality of the painting (or any work of art, for that matter)? Or is art to be assessed by itself? -Preston
Oliver Leaman
October 9, 2014
(changed October 9, 2014)
Permalink
I don't think anyone argues that the intention of the artist is linked with the quality of a work of art since if that was true my doodles are comparable to the best work of Leonardo da Vinci. It has been argued that intention is linked with the meaning of a work of art, while others think it... Read more
I've recently been struggling with the idea of Fatalism, Determinism, Compatibilism, Libertarianism, etc., and from what I've been reading, the general consensus is compatibilism among most philosophers. If this is the case, then what sense is there in being proud of myself for anything good I do? Is there such thing as effort in my life, or am I just on an inevitable and programmed path? Truth is, I'm an artist. Online, I prefer images be sourced, so anyone who appreciates it enough can get to it easily, and credit goes to the artist. I like to believe that the drawings I make and images I create have something respectable behind them, effort, hard work, practice, time, determination, patience, fun.. but then this debate of Moral Responsibility comes up, and muddles me a bit. I've been experiencing alot of mental stuff for a while- and through all of this, philosophical questions, existential crises, all of it just comes and never stops. It's like there's always something for me to worry, or think too deeply about. Truth be told, I have in fact had some suicidal thoughts, but not-so-much that I have any plans to go through with it ever, I like to think I'm better than that and I'm pretty stable now. I guess it all comes from the fact that I was brought up always believing that your reality is what you make of it, try your best, never give up, doesn't matter where you start, anyone can make if if they put their mind to it, all those sorts of things, and I've had a great life so far, I can't complain in the slightest. I'm definitely thankful I'm here and all, and I like to believe that the choices and effort I made got me here, but..- well, you see my problem. I love making art for people, I love entertaining, giving gifts, cheering people up and all- I love the feeling of being thanked and thanking others for what they do, inspiring people, and just being a real go-getter in life,- But if it's all automatic and just how things -have- to happen, why should anyone ever thank me? Why even enjoy it if I have no real responsibility towards it? If it all holds true, I don't deserve anything, I never really earned anything, it's all just a big on-rails illusion. By this point in my struggle, I can accept and believe the idea that I am -all- of me, my body, my conscious, my subconscious, everything is still all part of me, and therefore me. Ultimately, I guess what I want to know is- where DOES our control lie, if anywhere at all? I guess I've been stuck in this rut of not being able to feel pride in myself and taking credit and responsibility for a while, and can't find myself a happy medium, at least not yet.. Thanks for any help you can give.
You should not let these
Eddy Nahmias
October 9, 2014
(changed August 16, 2015)
Permalink
You should not let these thoughts get you in a rut or depress you (and if you're feeling depressed or suicidal, you should definitely get professional support to make sure the problem is not more serious than you think). Fatalism is not true if it's the idea that nothi... Read more