ask a question

recent responses

all topics

info

⚲

Ethics
Mind

Is it possible for thoughts to be evil or in some way criminal. For example, suppose I think about committing a crime. I plan it in my mind, and even fantasize about committing the crime. Is this wrong? Is intent to committ a crime wrong?

I think it is, morally wrong in any case, and for most crimes we do take into acount motive, so legally wrong also. On the other hand, unless we seriously consider undertaking a crime, how can we congratulate ourselves on avoiding the temptation to actually commit it? Aristotle raises this issue when he wonders whether it would be better to be a person who never feels temptation to be immoral, and so is moral, or whether it would be better to be a person who often is tempted to do wrong, and does right nonetheless. The former seems to be a bit bloodless and boring, the latter more exciting but in a sense rather corrupt, perhaps.
Value

Is there a reason why caviar and wine are considered finer than cheeseburgers and soda pop?

There is a reason. They are more expensive. Maimonides pointed out that civilized people value much more highly things that are literally useless or superfluous to our wellbeing, as compared with things that are vital. So bread and water are regarded as boring, and are relatively cheap, while more exotic and unnecessary products are valuable and cost a lot. He took this to be one of the features of civilization that are regrettable, and surely he is right.
Love

"I love you but I am not in love with you". Sometimes I understand what this means, other times it doesn't make any sense. Can you love someone and not be in love with them? If so, what does this "I love you" mean?

I have always thought it meant that I used to love you but I still have vestiges of my earlier feelings for you, which are now thoroughly diminished. It sort of acknowledges that once one has been in love with someone it is difficult to reduce the relationship to mere friendship (much easier to change it to hate!).
Justice

If someone doesn't vote, does she then cede (to any extent) the right to complain about the conduct of the subsequently elected official(s)?

I don't think so, perhaps none of the candidates looked worth voting for, or had the right views. On the other hand, if there is a candidate who you think would do a good job, and has the right ideas, and you do not vote for him or her, if someone else gets in then you have missed an opportunity to make your choice count. I don't think that prevents you from complaining though, and sometimes it is quite satisfying when the wrong person is elected since one can then contemplate a future of grumbling at the outcome. It is a bit like poking a painful tooth, in one sense unpleasant but also agreeable.
Children

Do your parents have the right to impose their worldview on you, simply because they paid for your upbringing and education? What if their worldview and values offend you deeply - do you owe them anything more than you would to anyone else who had offended you, simply because they may have sacrificed financially for you, when you were a child and had no identity that could clash with theirs?

It depends what is meant by "impose". Parents are entitled to provide what they think is appropriate guidance for their children, and of course if these views are regarded as dangerous or deplorable by the state then there will be some official way of intervening despite the wishes of the parents, and that is appropriate. Children may come to feel that their parents' views are not ones they wish to assume, and I dare say that they owe their parents a duty of respect, so they should take seriously the option of adopting those views, but they are not bound to do so. Surely no-one has the right to impose views on us; in most religions even God invites us to share his worldview, he does not oblige us to agree with him.
Knowledge

It possible to look at the world optimistically or pessimistically without sacrificing accuracy?

Certainly. We can have a particular view of the world, just get up in a good mood, say, and there is no reason why we should not have that view, even in the most unlikely circumstances. Accuracy does not come into it here, since the atttitude has more to do with us than with the world. It is like falling into or out of love. We do not have to fall in love with someone, and we do not have to fall out of love with someone, it is not as though the object of our love commanded our devotion, or at some later stage the lack of devotion. I suppose continuing to be optimistic when everything is terrible might make one wonder at the intelligence of the agent, but on the other hand it is the stuff of cheap fiction that people constantly fall in love with the wrong person, and were that no longer to be the case life would be far poorer emotionally, albeit probably a lot tidier intellectually.
Justice

I am an American who has embraced the ideals of the Enlightenment, specifically the inherent value, perspective, and rights all humans on this planet. How do we reconcile these values with contemporary ideologies, specifically Zionism, that posits a racially, religiously unique group with "overriding" rights?

I am not sure you are right on Zionism, although of course there are many Zionisms, as with all such national ideologies. Most Zionists, it seems to me, argue that the Jews constitute a nation and like any other nation, the British, the French, the Germans etc. they are entitled to a homeland. And it ought to be in Palestine, although a hundred years ago or so many Zionists were prepared to accept somewhere else! The idea that Jews seek status as "a racially, religiously unique group with 'overriding' rights" owes more to antisemitic stereotypes than to the reality of most forms of Zionism, although it is certainly true that there are some extreme views in Zionism as elsewhere.
Justice
Religion

Having just read Dawkins's The God Delusion I was appalled to learn how reviled atheists are in America. In Europe a person's stance (including politician's) on religion is largely irrelevant unless they draw attention to it. What is going on in America? What should skeptics and atheist philosophers do there to point out that atheism is a reasoned and logical viewpoint that doesn't presuppose immorality, etc.? It beggars belief that all presidential aspirants have to (in some cases as Dawkins remarks) probably pretend to be Christians in order to have any chance of being elected. I know of the Atheist's Wager, acceptance of which seems braver to me than blindly accepting the religious promises of heaven as dictated by those who brought you up. And what place do 'faith-based initiatives' have in an ostensibly secular government where church and state are separate under the constitution?

Don't believe everything you read. In my experience atheists are fine in the US, although as you say might not be advised to be frank about their views if they are standing as candidates for election in some parts of the country. A recent survey showed that atheists are the fastest growing group of believers in the US, in their case believers in nothing I suppose, and along with the pious enthusiasms that flourish here, a great deal of religious scepticism exists also, and always has. Dawkins has an axe to grind, and does it very well, and clearly it is currently fashionable to poke fun at the Americans from the standpoint of cynical and intelligent Europe, but like all fashions this will one day come to an end and a more realistic view of the diversity of American religious and non-religious life will emerge.
Probability
Religion

In support of the argument to design, people often remark that the order seen in nature is "improbable" and so requires a special explanation--i.e., a designer. But if order is seen throughout nature, in what sense is it improbable?

The improbability is taken to be that it came about through chance, or without someone intending it to be like that. The example is often giving of someone walking on a beach and finding a watch, never having seen one before. When she looks at it, she will not know what it is or what it does, but she is entitled to conclude that it could not have come about through chance, since it is so complex and organized. Whether that is a good argument is much debated, of course, but that is where the improbability is taken to lie.
Ethics

Many people (not all) who object to such things as torture, indefinite detention, or animal testing, object regardless of what the benefits of those things might be. Some of those people are liberals. That doesn't seem very coherent -isn't a lot of modern liberalism based on ideas about what the best outcome for everyone is? I know there are some social contract theories that might be an alternative to utilitarianism, but that doesn't work for the animal advocates, since presumably they don't believe that you have to be able to enter a social contract to have your rights respected. Is there some way for these people to have a coherent position?

I think a liberal can support a ban on torture unconditionally from a conseqentialist point of view. She would say perhaps that if society follows such a policy, then while in one or two cases the effects might be unfortunate, on the whole they would be better than the alternative. This could be a rule utilitarian attitude, and seems quite plausible to me. The argument against it would be that it would be better not to have such a rule, i.e. not to ban torture unconditionally, and then one would have to argue which policy involved the best consequences on the whole. That is where you should apply your argument, not against the liberal's use of consequentialism, but against the facts of the case about what that use implies.

Pages