ask a question

recent responses

all topics

info

⚲

Ethics

Hello everyone, My name is Mohit B. and i am from India. I found one PDF online named as "101 Ethical Dilemmas". I started reading the book and got struck on the very first dilemma. < < < < < < SITUATION: The battleship Northern Spirit was torpedoed in the engine room, and began to sink rapidly. ‘Abandon Ship!’ shouts Captain Flintheart. But few of the lifeboats are intact. One boat, desperately overloaded, manages to struggle away from the sinking vessel, Flintheart at the prow. The cold, grey waters of the Atlantic around it are filled with screaming, desperate voices, begging to be saved. QUESTION: But faced with the grim knowledge of the danger of capsizing the little boat, endangering the lives of those already on board, should any more sailors be picked up and rescued? > > > > > > MY ANSWER or THOUGHT: As, the situation says that there are few lifeboats..yes more sailors can be rescued. If suppose there are no lifeboats more then the answer would also be YES..since sailors can swim. Though...

I like your response very much--you are aiming to keep the maximum number of people alive by rotating time in the lifeboat. This is a consequentialist approach that demands selflessness from the people already on the lifeboat. They would have to agree to take their turn and jump back in the water. And it would have to be possible to get people in and out of the water without danger (probably unlikely). Other approaches may also be relevant. For example, Flintheart should probably be the first to give up his place, since it is the duty of the captain to take care of the passengers. Unless his presence is necessary for navigating the small boats. In ethical reasoning there is not usually one "right answer"; rather there are several reasonable answers that use moral reasoning.
Science

I have a question about what one might call "scientific astrology." "Astrology" as a predictive indicator, let's assume for discussion, has been discredited. "Astrology" as a coincident indicator, perhaps, let's not be too hasty. Imagine first an agrarian society barely above subsistence level. In the spring, everyone is out in the fields, including newborn infants in their equivalent of strollers or baby seats. In the winter, everyone is indoors all day. Recent psychological evidence seems to indicate that the development of people's personalities might be heavily influenced by their early childhood environment. So wouldn't the conjunction of these two observations provide a grounds upon which some form of astrology - not as causative, but as correlative - might actually have empirical evidence to support it?

You suggest that personality might be dependent on the time of year at which one is born, but for reasons other than the positions of the stars. That's a reasonable hypothesis with various possible mechanisms (you suggest the annual cycles of indoor and outdoor living plus some unstated human developmental mechanisms that are sensitive to external climate during specific intervals in infancy). No such mechanisms have been detected yet, but they shouldn't be ruled out a priori. But why call this theory "scientific astrology"? It has very little in common with astrology, which, at the very least, is about the influence of stars on human lives. They simply make some of the same predictions.

You suggest that personality might be dependent on the time of year at which one is born, but for reasons other than the positions of the stars. That's a reasonable hypothesis with various possible mechanisms (you suggest the annual cycles of indoor and outdoor living plus some unstated human developmental mechanisms that are sensitive to external climate during specific intervals in infancy). No such mechanisms have been detected yet, but they shouldn't be ruled out a priori. But why call this theory "scientific astrology"? It has very little in common with astrology, which, at the very least, is about the influence of stars on human lives. They simply make some of the same predictions.
Ethics

What's wrong with "self-plagiarism"?

In self-plagiarism you copy your own work from one already published venue to a new venue, and then try to publish it again without acknowledging where you took it from. It is misleads people, in the first place because it violates the standard academic convention to cite text that has previously appeared (even if it is your own text). People need to know where a text first appeared in order to trace such things as critiques by others. Secondly, it misleads about the quantity of your publications; in academics we often take number of publications as a rough guide to productivity, but if publications overlap, then there is less productivity than there appears. Self-plagiarism is therefore viewed as a kind of dishonesty.
Philosophy

Hi It seems to me there is a striking similarity between Economics and Philosophy. It's hard to find the words, but I feel like the 'same parts' of my brain are being used when I am trying to solve a philosophical problem (generally) and when I think about a problem in economics (and this isn't the case in other Arts subjects). It could be because the problems in economics overlap with problems in philosophy but I feel there's more to this intuition (something methodological?) than that. It is no surprise many prominent philosophers contributed greatly to the field of economics (JS Mill, Hume, A Smith, Marx, etc) and Philosophy/Economics majors score closely in standardized tests like the LSAT. Is this an impression that is common amongst professional philosophers?

You make an interesting observation about yourself that is important to contextualize. You find a similarity between the kind of economics you are learning and the kind of philosophy you are learning. I dare say that if you were reading Jean Paul Sartre you would find different "parts of your brain" involved! If you are learning the analytic philosophy literature and rational market economics perhaps what they have in common is abstraction and generality? Many prominent philosophers contributed greatly to many fields (biology, physics, psychology), not only to economics. I'm skeptical about any special relation between economics and philosophy.

You make an interesting observation about yourself that is important to contextualize. You find a similarity between the kind of economics you are learning and the kind of philosophy you are learning. I dare say that if you were reading Jean Paul Sartre you would find different "parts of your brain" involved! If you are learning the analytic philosophy literature and rational market economics perhaps what they have in common is abstraction and generality? Many prominent philosophers contributed greatly to many fields (biology, physics, psychology), not only to economics. I'm skeptical about any special relation between economics and philosophy.
Race

Is it racist to use the word "niggardly," despite the word not being etymologically related to the notorious N-word?

Perhaps you are reading Kant's Groundwork , which contains a prominent use of this word. And you are right that it is not etymologically related to the N-word. But I think it is inadvisable to use the word in most contexts because of the possibility that you will be heard as saying (something close to) the N-word. When I teach this portion of Kant, I always explictly address this word and its etymology to avoid any misunderstandings.
Religion

A friend of mine self identifies as a Christian but rejects the concept of a personal anthropomorphic god. It appears to me that a person who rejects that concept of god seems to have much more in common with an atheist than a Christian since it seems that many Christians subscribe to the view of god which my friend rejects. Does it make sense to identify with the Christian tradition when one is rejecting-it appears to me- a fundamental part of the religion?

There is more to being a Christian (or a Jew, or a Muslim, or Buddhist) than subscribing to a particular set of beliefs. Religions incorporate ritual, culture and history as well as beliefs. It is a matter of opinion whether or not beliefs are "fundamental" or "necessary" for membership in a religion. (Some Christian denominations require it, but not Christianity as a whole, and not most branches of other religions). Indeed, I self identify as an atheist and a Jew and see no contradiction in doing so. Most atheists have other identifications (religious, political, ethical, national etc) since identifying yourself in terms of what you don't believe isn't really much of identity.
Animals
Environment

Suppose a species is brought to another region, where it quickly overruns its local rivals and drives the native species to extinction. This is something that has been suggested might happen with the larger grey squirrels that are slowly overwhelming the smaller red squirrels in Europe. Many people would suggest that this is a problem, but I wonder if that is really the case. One way or another, individual red squirrels will end up dying, either because other red squirrels are eating their food, or because grey squirrels are eating it. If more red squirrels die than would otherwise, the flip-side seems to be that there are more grey squirrels flourishing than otherwise. For the starving red squirrels, it doesn't seem to matter who is eating their food; and for the flourishing grey squirrels, it doesn't seem to matter where exactly they are flourishing. Of course, there is the risk of the newcomers ruining the entire local ecology and turning things into a barren wasteland, but that doesn't seem to...

You ask a fair question and I suspect that some of the answer, in the case of the squirrels, is that the red squirrels are thought to be more attractive than the grey squirrels, so many people would prefer that the grey squirrels do not take over. But there are also reasons for environmental concern (i.e. not just aesthetic preference) in that there is reasonable fear of a loss of genetic diversity and also fear of upsetting the ecological balance. Invasive species cause the extinction of other species without replacing them with other new species, hence loss of genetic diversity (and vulnerability to future environmental challenges). Invasive species also often upset the ecological balance e.g. rabbits in Australia and then cause the extinction of several species, not only the species that they directly compete with. Grey squirrels are thought to damage the woodlands in England, and thereby the environment of some bird species.
Biology
Education

To what extent is one responsible for how accomplished one can be in life? Many assume that hard work is all that is needed. Personally i'm in college, and i've been getting A's because of hard work. I am however almost tormented by the thought that alot of my childhood was spent doing pretty much nothing. John Stuart Mill was fluent in Latin and Greek by the time he was twelve or so, because he was pushed so hard by his father. Mill was an accomplished man off course, and most people could not do the same things as he did even if they worked hard later in life. Should one just give up trying to excel academically if one has not had a privileged childhood as he did?

John Stuart Mill was a childhood prodigy, as you say, but in later adolescence he suffered a "nervous breakdown" (probably depression) which he thought was caused by too much intellectual work as a child. So, at the same age you are now, he was not very functional. He also died when he was 67--not a long life by today's measures. There are many routes to academic accomplishments; perhaps hard work is the only thing they have in common, and you know that you are capable of that. In any case, you cannot change the past or guarantee the future--only work with the present. If you enjoy academics and aspire to greatness, I wish you the best of luck!
Mind
Physics

Cartesian dualism relies upon two substances, body and mind, which are totally distinguished by their properties. While the characteristic nature of body is Extendedness, the mind is known with its capability of thinking. So, Cartesian Dualism is founded on these two basic propositions: 1. All bodies are extended. And 2. All minds are thinkable. Abandoning the latter, the former (1) seems acceptable to all physicalists. But if so, then its contraposition might be true equally. In other words, physicalists should be agreed with this proposition too: 3. All non-extended are non-body The question is how physicalists justify this proposition? In other hand, the unavoidable consequence of this proposition (and its truth) is existence of a non-extended (entity) which isn't body, which isn't justifiable in reductive physicalism approach. So, considering this proposition that in reductive physicalism approach: 4. everything has identify with physics. But, isn’t paradoxical acceptance of (3) and (4)...

Dear Borhan, The answer to your question requires some deductive logic. Let's start with (1) all bodies are extended, which is Descartes' premise. It follows logically that if something is not extended, then it is not a body. Thus (3) follows logically from (1). You are worried because you think that (3) assumes that something is not extended. But it does not. It only claims that IF something is non extended then it is also not a body. So physicalists can agree with the claim.
Death

If a person is not afraid of non-existance then if he is afaid of death he is actually afraid of the possible pain involved ; does this seem reasonable?

You are reasoning along the lines of Epicurean philosophers, who argued that death is non-existence and therefore should not matter to us. (See a nice discussion of this in Havi Carel's recent book "Illness.") You are perhaps wondering how to interpret a lingering fear of death, and suggesting that such a fear may be rational if it is fear of the possible pain involved in dying. It's also possible that a lingering fear of death is not rational.

Pages