ask a question

recent responses

all topics

info

⚲

Ethics

I'm certain that if we could go back in time and undo mistakes, our lives wouldn't be any better. But I can't figure out why this is so. Why then are mistakes so hard to live with if undoing them doesn't make things any better?

Your question takes off from your certainty that if we could go back in time and undo our mistakes our lives wouldn't be "any better." I'm asking you to critically reflect on that certainty. Let me ask you a question: are you certain that if we could go back in time and undo our mistake that our lives would be pretty much the same (i.e. we don't have much control over the way things turn out) or is it that you think that our lives would be different but no better (e.g. if we undo one mistake only to make another)? Whichever you think, can you agree that these are empirical claims, that is, claims that can be tested (in empirical psychology, for example, we can see whether decisions make a difference, and if so, what kind of difference). It may be that in some areas of life we have little control, in some areas of life we have control but can't make things better, and in some areas (quite significant areas, in my knowledge and experience) we have control and can make things better. ...
Ethics

I recently overheard a man saying he was kicked out of his apartment because he "peeped on" his female roommate in the shower. He said, "A peeping tom isn't hurting anyone." I don't think this is universal, but, to what extent is he right?

If the peeping Tom didn't hurt anyone, why did he get kicked out of his apartment? Perhaps Tom would say, "An undiscovered peeping Tom isn't hurting anyone." But is he right about even that qualified claim? Even if he isn't hurting anybody, his action may still be wrong (e.g. it may violate the roommate's privacy). It is likely that he is harming any relationship he has with his roommate, even if she never finds out (secrets have a way of getting in the way of friendship). He may be hurting himself by developing anti-social habits. And, he did get discovered, and harmed his roommate (presumably she was upset and felt violated). Tom's defense amounts to "I'm looking, not touching, so I'm better than a rapist"...not much of a defense, really.
Ethics

Is it inconsistent to assert that we should withhold judgment on people who act immorally (because we don't know the specifics of their situation) and also that we should praise people who act righteously (even though we don't know much about their situation either).

This behavior strikes me as lacking even-handedness, but not as inconsistent. One may have a view that it is better to risk praising falsly than to refrain from praising at all, and better to refrain from criticising than to risk criticising falsly. It's a pragmatic attitude that makes sense for those who want to deal with others by positively reinforcing their actions (sometimes inappropriately) but never punishing them.
Biology
Ethics
Religion

A lot of people think we shouldn't conduct stem cell research or cloning based on the idea that man shouldn't 'play god.' My response; why not? Now, I'm an atheist, but even if we were to assume the bible were literal truth, why should we not try to emulate god if he is so perfect and wondrous? Is there any logic behind the playing god argument? What logic *can* be attributed to religion, at any rate...

I think you are right to discern that the "playing God" objection to stem cell research/cloning is not what it seems to be. Those who offer this objection seem quite comfortable with the idea of "playing God" in well proven medical interventions e.g. appendectomy for appendicitis, C-section for obstructed labor, chemotherapy for leukemia. Of course there are some people (Christian Scientists, for example) who forgo most medical care on religious grounds. But the vast majority of those who worry about "playing God" with stem cell research/cloning are happy consumers of the best that health care has to offer. The question is, why don't they extend that happy consumer attitude to stem cell research/cloning? I am not sure of the answer to this, but I think it may have to do with the uncertainty that currently exists around these new technologies (will they work? will they produce monsters of some kind?). So it may be a risk aversive attitude of the kind "leave it to God, we don't know enough to...
Biology
Ethics

Eugenics has a bit of a history for being unethical; between disputes over what makes people 'better' and outright genocide of those that don't make the cut, this is quite understandable. However, what about other methods of eugenics? I've recently come across a movement, I can't vouch for size but I imagine rather small, called Transhumanism. It calls for the improvement of human physical and mental aptitudes and abilities with modern science and technology. Surely THIS isn't immoral, right? Unless patients were unwilling, procedures unduly risky, or improvements distributed unequally or based on race or income, surely the desire to improve the human race can't be construed as immoral, can it?

Your last sentence is correct, I think, with the exception of the word "improve," which I would replace with "modify" or "enhance." "Improvement" raises all the questions that critics of eugenics have raised about classifying human beings into better or worse. By the way, we are already Transhumans, if you count glasses, sneakers, computers, etc. Perhaps the movement Transhumanism want the modifications integrated with our biology. But why would that be better?
Ethics

I'm just a Portuguese 15 year old boy looking for some answers (sorry for my bad english) Imagine that there is a suicide bomber terrorist with some people in a room, and there are lots of cops outside that room...The terrorist let all the people leave the room and he stay there alone unarmed but the cops are still outside and they obviously wnat to kill him.Would it be politicaly and would society think it was the correct way of doing things?I think they shouldn't kill him, after all he is a human... but why yes/not?

If the terrorist is alone in the room, then the cops should try to capture him, preferably without injuring him or killing him. Killing would only be justified in self-defense or in defense of other humans. It is up to judge and jury to decide guilt and consequences (e.g. punishment). I think, for moral reasons, the death penalty should be abolished. So there need be no killing here.
Abortion
Ethics

While I don't have a firm opinion on the issue, I never understand many pro-life positions that state they are against abortion except in the case of rape or incest. Life is life. These babies are as innocent as others. The situation in which they were conceived should have no bearing on whether they should be allowed to be aborted. It is illogical.

If the moral objection to abortion is that it kills innocent persons, then you are right, the circumstances of conception should be irrelevant. An important philosophical article by Judith Jarvis Thomson, "A Defense of Abortion" (originally published in Philosophy and Public Affairs in 1971 and widely reprinted) argues that in some circumstances, killing innocent persons is permissible. Those special circumstances are when the life of another is dependent on some huge personal sacrifice of an individual who did not voluntarily take on that responsibility. Thomson argues that when pregnancy occurs against the will of the pregnant woman (rape is clearly an instance of this, and Thomson argues that contraceptive failure is also an instance) it is morally permissible to abort (although it would be morally admirable to go through with the pregnancy).
Ethics
Science

I'm a scientist. The results of my research may generate technologies that could potentially be used in both and offensive and defensive military applications. These same technologies could potentially help people as well. Here are two examples: (1) My work could potentially create odor-sensing devices to target "enemies" and blow them up, but the same work could aid land-mine detection and removal. (2) My work could help build warrior robots, but it could also help build better prosthetics for amputees. For any given project, I have to decide which agency(ies) my lab will take money from. I do not want to decide based on the name of the agency alone: DARPA has funded projects that helped amputees and killed no one, while I would bet (but do not know for sure) that some work sponsored by the NSF has ultimately been used in military operations. So I'd like to base my decision on something more than the agency acronym. How can I start to get my head around this? What sorts of questions should I...

These are terrific questions and I hope someone else on the panel can also respond to them. The philosophy of science literature, and even the literature on values in science (Hugh Lacey, Helen Longino, Lynn Hankinson Nelson and others) is rather general and not sufficiently applied to give quick answers. I think you are going to have to do a good deal of the thinking yourself. But here are some questions and considerations. The agency acronym is, indeed, not an infallible guide to the nature of the research. However, it is a rough guide and perhaps more important, it is *perceived* as affecting the content of the research done. The funding agency will influence who chooses to work with you (science is after all not an individual enterprise) and how people evaluate your research. On the other hand, DARPA money is easier to come by than NSF money (or so I hear) and you might prefer to do research with DARPA money than not do it at all (that is a question to ask yourself). The issue here is whether...
Ethics
Justice

As an Englishman, I share a dilemma with many of my countrymen that we do not have a strong sense of English (rather than British) nationality - in contrast to say the Scots, the Welsh etc. My question is what are the moral arguments for and against the establishment of a clear English national identity. My question is definitely not one geared towards a backward-looking (and hence white Anglo-Saxon) identity, but one that can unite the inhabitants of the country in a sense of pride. If the team prefer to answer with reference to other nationalities then this is fine - it is more the moral principles that I am seeking to understand. Thank You

For what purposes is a countrywide "sense of pride" useful? English pride was high during the German bombing in WWII, and served the effort to win that terrible war. National pride may serve useful motivating functions in similar circumstances. Provided the purposes are morally worthy, national pride is morally justified. I'm not sure I can think of any moral arguments for the value of national pride in itself (i.e. without reference to some specific national goal).
Children
Ethics
Feminism

Mary Warnock says we have a right to have children. It's a question I asked myself in the waiting room of a fertility clinic as I was registering for IVF treatment - it's a question I continuing asking myself as I see more and more gay fathers flying off to exotic lands for their offspring through surrogacy. How can we conciliate the right to have children with the exploitation of women? Best regards Pensiero Rome, Italy

The right to pursue certain goods (such as having children, or making money) does not justify using immoral means (such as exploiting women, or stealing) and does not entitle one to success (being a parent, or being rich). There are many ways to try to become a parent (or a wealthy person), some legal and some illegal, some moral and some immoral. Perhaps you think that the right to have children is more of a right than the right to make money? (Like, for example, basic rights for food, shelter, education or health care.) Even if it was a universal human right to become a parent (which I doubt), it would not follow that there are universal human rights to be a parent by any particular means (such as IVF, surrogacy, adoption etc.) There are many ways to become a parent, and as those in the adoption community often say, "second choice does not equal second best." I wish you the best.

Pages