ask a question

recent responses

all topics

info

⚲

Ethics
Philosophy

It seems to me that much contemporary philosophy is a bit obsessed with clarifying arguments and analyzing statements and lacks real wisdom about the world. For example, I can imagine a typical situation where an ordinary person asks a professional philosopher a question relating to an applied ethics question. The philosopher answers by analysing the component parts of the statements contained within the question and attempting to assess the technicalities of the implicit argument put forward by the ordinary person. The outcome is that everybody is none the wiser as to the real answer to the applied ethics question because the philosopher has no real wisdom about the world but is merely trying to analyse argument structures! What do you think about this? Thanks

I'm not sure that the outcome of analysing arguments is always that no one is any wiser concerning the issue at stake. And that's because there are several possible results of such analysis, all of which would seem to help us better understand the issue at stake and the justifiability of possible answers: (1) Perhaps the (implicit or not) argument the person offers for her answer is invalid; in that case, the philosopher is able to show that, whether or not her answer is right, her argument doesn't give us reason to accept that answer as right. (2) Perhaps there are assumptions the person makes in offering her answer but that she doesn't defend; in that case, particularly if the assumptions seem questionable/controversial themselves, the philosopher is able to show that the answer requires more defense than the person has offered. Or (3), perhaps the way the person has framed the question closes off certain possible avenues of thinking about the issue; in that case, the philosopher is able to point out...
Ethics
Euthanasia

Some people believe that removing someone from life support is wrong and is "playing God" because it could most likely cause death. With that line of thinking, shouldn't life support be considered "playing God" since they are sustaining life (especially when there is almost no chance for recovery)?

I think you're right to wonder about the 'playing God' objection. First off, it's not always clear what the objection actually is. Sometimes, it seems to be the straightforward claim that only God may make decisions about life and death (and so about when to prolong life or hasten death); humans may not. But, if this is the claim, you're right to notice that, if it works against a decision to hasten death, it should also work against a decision to prolong (or sustain) life; and so, the objection ends up also undermining the position of the person making the objection. But I wonder if the objection is not sometimes a different sort of claim, one that doesn't suffer this sort of problem. The claim might be that only God may decide the time of a person's death, particularly when means are available to us humans to prolong or sustain that life. In other words, the claim might be that, so long as there are means available to prolong a person's life, we humans must decide to use those means to prolong that life...