How do good and evil exist if one does not believe in a higher power? Any logic or emotion that renders something "wrong" really has no basis. We all inherently know that murder is wrong, but without a higher power, how is that legitimate? What if one person disagrees? Why is he not right to kill as he pleases? Thank you.

Your question reminds me very much of a quote from the Russian author Dostoyevsky: "If there is no God, everything is permitted." Crime and Punishment is his wonderful novel. The main character proposes to do exactly as you say, commit a murder just to test the limits of ethics. Spoiler alert: it doesn't turn out all that well. Can there be ethics without a higher power to act an the heavy, the enforcer? I certainly think so, knowing many ethical atheists. There are any number of schools of thought that can give us ethics without religion. Three popular options are deontology, utility, and virtue. Kant, the deontologist, thinks that respect for rationality is a reason to be moral. Mill, the utilitarian, thinks that arriving at a greater good is a reason to be ethical. Aristotle takes another route: we ought to organize our lives not around a set of rules per se, but around developing well-balanced characters . Imagine you talk with your own Raskolnikov, who is set on...

In a hypothetical situation I am a vegan talking to a meat eater who buys his meat from a supermarket and has no interest in where it came from. I say that I don't think people have the right to eat meat unless they are willing to learn about what it takes to provide that meat, witness it first hand or even produce it for themselves. He says that he doesn't want to know where it came from and is quite happy for someone else to do the dirty work if they are happy to and does not feel at all guilty. Is he morally wrong and do I have a valid argument?

This is a neat situation because the meat eater is so unrepentant! It must be infuriating for the vegan. I fantasize the meat eater holds a juicy burger while the debate goes on. Precious! I think the philosophical question at heart has to do with ignorance. Is purposefully dwelling in ignorance morally acceptable? Notice this is not the same thing as Is purposefully dwelling in ignorance psychologically comfortable? We know the answer to that last question is yes. That's why the prisoners in Plato's Allegory of the Cave have to be dragged up to the sunlight. So on to is purposefully dwelling in ignorance morally acceptable. There are some instances in which I think we can say yes, ignorance is acceptable. For example, I have heard it said that the famous philosopher Peter Singer (who advances the view that most Westerners should donate all excess funds to the world's poor) can't play football/soccer and think about the poor at the same time. Say this story is true: he purposefully...

At this point I am so familiar with a) The human propensity for religious belief b) The history and basis of the world's major religious belief systems and c) The apathetic functioning of the universe, that intellectually I am unable to adopt the anthropocentric vision of the universe as presented by the monotheistic traditions. However, watching my muslim friend pray and fast during this month of Ramadan, I am struck by how much peace, happiness and purpose her beliefs bring her and contrast it with the emptiness and meaninglessness which I feel. The fissure between our worldviews is a constant source of alienation between us. 1) Would it be ethical for me to attempt to persuade her of the veracity of atheism (regardless of whether or not she is won over to this worldview), despite my knowledge that this may adversely effect her positivity about life? 2) Failing this, should I try to swallow the blue pill of theism and attempt -emotionally rather than intellectually- to force myself into believing it's...

My Atheist Friend, I advise pursuing other options because the two you outlined don't seem to reflect your genuine values. Either one wouldn't really be true to you. I say this because I suspect option 1 violates your sense of ethics - either because you are committed to your friend's right to religious freedom or because you don't want to cause her a depression. (In addition, I predict option 1 will have a low success rate, if 'success' is measured in talking her out of her faith.) Option 2 violates your sense of yourself and your most deeply held beliefs. You would literally be going through the motions. There is nothing wrong with that, and many take comfort in ritual, but I think it might feel like more of a sham for a true atheist. <So I advise option 3: explore existential atheism, which is the philosophical school most aligned with the views you have described. Jean-Paul Sartre is a wonderful author who advances this view. Sartre's philosophy is that once we realize that the...

In your opinion which philosophical idea has had the greatest impact on Western thought? Do you think there are more deserving ideas that have received less attention? Jon T. Sussex

Hi Jon, This is a really difficult question! First I offer my short list, then I'll tell you which is the most important (to me, at any rate). - The concept of the soul is certainly important in Western philosophy. Maybe related - or repackaged in different terms - would be the concept of the individual. -Certain principles of logic (such as the law of non-contradiction) have had a great influence on Western philosophy. It is interesting that non-contradiction - which has been taken to be a hallmark of rationality - is seen in a completely different light in Eastern philosophy. -The golden rule (i.e., do not do to others what you yourself would hate, also phrased as do to others as you would like to be done, love your neighbor, etc.) is found in some form in all ethical and religious systems that I know of - East, West, African, Native American. I am sure there are other ideas that could also go on this short list of candidates. For my money: I think the golden...

As a newbie to philosophy, I've been spending much time with a good friend who studied philosophy in college. It's been, thus far, a fascinating discussion on the ancient philosophers, the evolution of the different schools of thought, and a great introduction from which I hope to delve into more specific readings of many of them. We've gone from Socrates/Plato/Aristotle to Descarte, Locke, Leibniz, Hume, Kant, Camus, and Nietzsche. Even with all of the fascination I have with these interesting minds from the past, I feel like I note a trend that many great philosophers build on, refine, or otherwise take inspiration from the ideas and works of those before them. So, then who are the modern philosophers alive and well today? My friend suggested two in particular who he feels are noteworthy - Kitcher and Quine - though Quine passed away in 2000. I also have read a bit by Peter Singer, who I find interesting and quite different, too. Perhaps I'm already in the company of a great many others here,...

I have to say it is encouraging that you are interested in living philosophers. It reminds us that the great minds of the past don't get to have the last word. The film "Examined Life" hit the arty cinemas here last year, and I believe it soon will be on DVD. There you will find Peter Singer, with whom you are already familiar. Also featured are Cornel West, Martha Nussbaum, Judith Butler, and many others who are well respected for their originality and clarity. It seems there is a book project associated with the film; the book is edited by Astra Taylor. Good luck!

Is it better to marry someone you like and get along with or to marry someone with whom you are passionately in love? I am married to a man who I get along with and have some affection for but I do not love him and now realise that I never did. However, I get on fine with him. The fact that I am largely indifferent to him means that I am not really affected by his lack of love, affection or regard for me - nor do I generally want his company. The same applies for him - as he feels more or less similarly for me. We have not discussed our feelings with each other - but it is obvious. We have children and we stick together for their sakes and for convenience. I do not see our marriage breaking up. Some years ago I fell deeply in love with another man. I am still in love with him and I think that he feels the same. However, nothing happened between us nor will it ever happen - nor do I want anything to happen as I know that I would not be able to cope with any form of rejection from him. If I was...

I like Nicholas's response as-is, but will chime in here with a book recommendation: Robert Solomon's book About Love is an absolutely fantastic work. It is written to be accessed by anyone interested in love, marriage, or relationships. It is wonderfully clear and has been the intellectual highlight of my summer. I think it would help you thinking through your decisions ahead. Good luck.

The other day I overheard a discussion over immigration, one man obviously to the right of the political spectrum said "we should not let foreigners in the country", the second, obviously on the left said that "we owe them, that as britain managed to control over a quarter of the world at one time and we subjicated and abused the people for financial gains and power it's about time that we made up for acting like bullies". The first replied "we owe them nothing, that we never treated them like this it was people who have now all died". Leaving out the political factors of immigration the question is, can a country morally owe someone? If it can, does it only stand as long as the generation responsible are alive or can the next generation (that disagrees with imperial ideas) be held responsible for the actions of a previous, and what if the subjugated people are also dead, are their descendants owed? Where does responsibility end?

The immigration debate you mention reminds me of the reparations for slavery debate that happens on my side 'of the pond.' These are wonderfully interesting issue, but you are right: let's put aside the particulars of those debates to talk about justice, then pizza, and then I’ll swing back around to responsibility. It is true that people alive today cannot be to blame for the evils of the British Empire or American slavery. This is why it seems strange to some that 'we' should pay the price for injustices committed long ago. However, history isn't a matter for the history books. The lingering effects of past historical injustices stay with us long after the occupiers have left or the shackles have been removed. One of these lingering effects is that people alive today may well continue to benefit from injustices committed hundreds of years ago - injustices which they deplore, but nevertheless continue to benefit them. For example, British citizens now could be said to enjoy a high standard of living...

I have a question on how to study philosophy; that is, should I start from the text or from the lectures? Is it better to listen to lectures and look at summaries/webpages before going on to the text, or to struggle with the text in the beginning and start from the concepts that arise from it? Thanks - from a Junior; student of philosophy

I am glad you got in touch. It is always nice to (virtually) meet serious students like yourself. Your question seems to acknowledge two strategies, each with its own pitfalls. (1) Fight every inch to understand the original texts on your own and then go to the videos and lectures or (2) use the supplements first, even though they may unduly influence your own interpretations of the texts once you get to them. Surely either way you will make some headway in terms of understanding philosophy. I bet the purists would say only (1) will do. But these purists may be biased, being already trained in philosophy. I think whether strategy 1 or 2 is better may depend your own personal learning style. Some people love to tinker; they love to take things apart to see how it all fits together. More than once I have begun a knitting project, for example, just to see how all those knots are supposed to come together. (Memo to the brown wool sweater: I will figure you out yet!) If this metaphor describes how...

Students in my school are currently voting for a Student Representative, and I am one of the nominees. After reading all nominees' manifestos, I have come to conclude that I above all others seem the best person for the role. We have been told to vote for whom we think would be best, and I believe this is me. There is no rule against voting for yourself, however I do worry that this is in some way morally wrong. My concerns are whether it is okay (as I am voting for the person I genuinely believe to be the best equipped, as is the purpose of a vote), or whether this is simply my way of justifying my own subconcious bias and need to satisfy my own ambition - the status and benefits of getting the position. Also, I believe I would not still vote for myself if the votes were not anonymous. Is there any well-known moral stance on this issue?

Congratulations both on your nomination and on your pangs on conscience - the latter is too rarely seen among more experienced politicians! However, I am happy to set your mind at rest. Voting for oneself in an election poses no moral hazards that I can see. (I would change my mind about this if we were talking about a corrupt system, where the vote is rigged or certain voters are unfairly excluded.) I suspect your worries come from two fronts. First, it may seem egotistical to vote for oneself. This would explain your shy refuge in the anonymous vote. Rather than think of it as egotistical you might instead see this vote as confident: you are confident in your ability to work hard and take the job seriously. One thing that tells me this confidence is justified and not ego-driven is the very fact that you wrote in to us. You are already taking the post seriously before it is even yours. Second, you raise the interesting idea that your belief in your candidacy is not due to your diligent...

What should we make of the Dickson verdict? UK prisoner Kirk Dickson and his wife Lorraine made various appeals to achieve their right to found a family. Dickson is in prison for murder and by the time he is released his wife will be too old to bear children. The couple campaigned for Dickson's right to donate sperm to be used via IVF. Their appeal was granted based upon the idea that if Dickson was not allowed to do this, it would be a violation of his basic right to found a family. I think that lots of questions can be raised from this: Do criminals sacrifice their right to found a family when committing a crime? If not, should their right be acknowledged through the use of IVF - what about alternative methods that cost less money? The biggest question for me is based upon the fact that six more prisoners have petitioned for their right to become fathers. But what happens when prisoners petition for their right to become mothers? This adds a whole new element to the debate but the state cannot deny...

I'm with you. But for me, the concern is not so much men vs. women and their respective rights, but the nature of punishment and who really ought to become a parent. The crucial problem with this case is that the murderer in question is currently incarcerated. There are certain rights which prisoners maintain, despite their crimes. The right to medical care. The right to worship. The right to have access to legal counsel. The right to live in a place that is safe while incarcerated. Putting someone in a dank hole to rot isn't justice, no matter the crime committed.One of the many social purposes of incarceration is punishment. Punishment ought to hurt, but not too much (see note on dark hole above). No doubt it is painful for prisoners not to be able to do things that free people otherwise enjoy. But this strikes us as the fair price paid for committing crimes. I think the human right to have a family is on shaky grounds, much more shaky than the right for prisoners to have health,...

Pages