ask a question

recent responses

all topics

info

⚲

Ethics

I recently read the following argument on a blog, and I was wondering what the panelists might say about it. It is a well known philosophical principle that one cannot infer normative facts from empirical ones (this is the is-ought problem). But if, as it is often supposed, "ought implies can," then cannot implies ought not ("ought not" in the sense of "not obligatory"). In that case, we can infer normative facts from facts about empirical facts about what people cannot do.

Right. So either the philosophical principle is incorrect or the "ought implies can" is incorrect.
Ethics
Medicine

In a hypothetical situation that could possibly have real-life implications, how should one decide between helping a small group of extremely sick individuals with only a small possibility of benefits (e.g., caring for AIDS patients without knowledge of whether or not your treatment will allow them to live) or helping many who have a greater chance of surviving (e.g., spending more time with individuals with proven treatable illnesses)? With either choice, it seems that there is a serious quandary. Should one elect to help the many, neglecting to care for those who are most likely to perish anyways? If so, is this justifiable by helping cure more while leaving those few sick individuals to fend for themselves?

According to the utilitarian approach, you should do the most good (or, what is likeliest to lead to the most good). And if you really are a utilitarian, you should look at all options, not just the two you mentioned (include options such as sending all your money to UNICEF, or becoming a Mother Teresa). Non-utilitarians approach such questions differently. They are more likely to consider what you WANT to do in the discussion about how to lead a moral life.
Animals
Ethics

If animals have rights, shouldn't they have responsibilities? For example, dolphins have been known to kill porpoises, or even other dolphins, for fun. Do not the dolphins deserve the death penalty for these heinous actions? You might argue that dolphins are not developed enough to have moral responsibility. But dolphins are not developed enough to have morality, why should they be developed enough to have rights? Most animals rights activists (call them ARA's) assert that a humans right to life and well-being comes not simply from being human (that would be speciesist.) Instead, they assert that our rights come from from our functionality or development. Part of our development includes a moral dimension. So by the standards of ARA's, any agent with rights also has responsibilities. I doubt the PETA would approve of me stabbing a porpoise to death. Why aren't dolphins held to the same standard?

Humans have both rights and responsibilites, but other beings may have either, both, or neither. Think of infant humans: they have rights but no responsibilities. As children mature, they get some responsibilites. Mentally disabled adults have rights, but sometimes not the full range of "normal" adult responsibilities. Responsibility depends on the capacity to distinguish right from wrong. Having rights depends on (most people think) being sentient.
Ethics
Love

Is it always worse to be unfaithful by action (having an affair) or by thought (fantasising about a person)? An affair can last for a while without the adulterer's partner ever even knowing about it and when it's over the adulterer may, in some cases, have a more favourable regard for his/her spouse. However fantasising about a person can go on indefinitely and the spouse is then always compared unfavourably with the love object - and the person fantasising is perpetuating an "in love" state which will keep him/her somewhat detached from reality. What are your views?

Why is it important to rank which one is worse? And why expect one to be generally worse than another (rather than each case assessed on its merits)?
Children
Ethics

What is the best age to become a parent? I am 27 years old, married, and have no desire to have kids anytime soon. I am aware that age is a factor though, so am I just being selfish?

Your question about "best age to become a parent" seems to be asking about what is in the best interests of the child. A comprehensive ethical assessment of this question may and should include the interests of the parents (as persons, their interests are worthy of moral considerations). As for the best interests of the child, age of the parents is not instrinsically morally relevant. Age may be relevant in some situations if it is a proxy for such things as likelihood of living to raise the child or giving the child a good quality environment (older adults may have greater financial resources, or contrariwise less energy). There are so many things to consider in timing the birth of a child--if, indeed, one has such a choice, which is a recent luxury--that it is often difficult to tell what is in the best interests of a child. It seems ethically reasonable to postpone parenthood in situations such as personal financial crisis, personal illness, temporary physical and political dangers, lack of a co...
Ethics
Medicine

An 11-year-old child lies on the operating table, dying from an accident. He asks his doctor if he is going to die. The doctor says "no", knowing the child will be dead in minutes. I say the doctor (it is not me) did nothing wrong. What good does it do for a child to be told he will be dead in a few minutes. This beloved family doctor has been conflicted over this 40-year-old problem and teared up when telling someone (me) for the first time.

The salient feature of this question is that the dying person is an 11-year old child, rather than an adult. Our sympathy is aroused and we wish to protect the child from pain, especially the pain of knowing that s/he is about to die. I think it is important to first ask the question: if the dying person was an adult, would it be appropriate to lie about the prognosis? And I think the answer is "No. The adult has a right to be told the truth about their prognosis if they ask." So, if an adult has that right, why not a child? Some would say that a child "can't handle the information." But I think that depends on the child, and many 11-year olds might be able to handle the information as well as adults, and might use it to e.g. make final statements or requests. The work of anthropologist Myra Bluebond-Langner on dying children shows that children often handle the topic of their own death as maturely (or more maturely) as adults do. The beloved family doctor could probably have made a better decision.

Pages