Recent Responses
Let's say that a virus spread throughout the world and damaged the areas of the brain that are responsible for emotions. The entire population was affected and could no longer experience any emotional reactions, although their reason and intellectual ability was unimpaired. Would morality change if we no longer have any emotional reaction to cheaters, thiefs, inequity, or tragedy? Maybe it's difficult to answer such a hypothetical, but any opinions would be appreciated.
Alan Soble
January 1, 2007
(changed January 1, 2007)
Permalink
Emotion-less or emotion-free creatures/beings have been explored in science fiction, including Stanley Kubrick's "2001" and "Star Trek." See what Wikipedia says about the 1956 B&W movie, "Invasion of the Body Snatchers," at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_the_Body_Snatchers.... Read more
Why is the Law of Contradiction so important to Philosophers? Can its truth be proven? What are the consequences for philosophy of an answer to the question, what's at stake? Thanks so much for your help. Krystle
David Papineau
December 14, 2006
(changed December 14, 2006)
Permalink
Here's what I said to an earlier question asking why contradictions are bad (November 23). As you'll see, my answer implies that it's not just philosophers for whom the avoidance of contradiction is important. It's important for anybody who is aiming at the truth. "A simple answer is t... Read more
If by my death I could save another's life (like falling on a grenade) do I have a moral obligation to do so? Are there circumstances when this might or might not be true? Are their schools of philosophy or specific works that address this question?
Miranda Fricker
December 8, 2006
(changed December 8, 2006)
Permalink
One can perhaps imagine circumstances in which it made ethical sense that someone should sacrifice their own life for that of another person. For instance, one might sacrifice oneself to save one's child. We might feel such an act is an especially good act, a 'supererogatory' act i.e. so... Read more
I'm looking for essays arguing that what we whole-heartedly believe is empirical reality, is really only what we've agreed is reality. Can anyone direct me?
Peter Lipton
December 7, 2006
(changed December 7, 2006)
Permalink
Thomas Kuhn goes some way in this direction in his work on the nature of science. (You might have a look at his classic Structure of Scientific Revolutions, especially chapter ten.) It's not that he denied that there is an external world that sharply constrains what scientists can say; bu... Read more
Is freedom really so desirable? Is it not better to be captive but cared for, than "free" to die of famine, disease or conflict? This example is physical, but mental captivity (e.g., constraining our thoughts to what we believe) can be more comforting than opening our minds to thoughts we might find uncomfortable or incomprehensible. Freedom, particularly in the Western World, is often held up as an ideal for which to strive. Is it really as good as it is made out to be?
Jyl Gentzler
December 20, 2006
(changed December 20, 2006)
Permalink
"Is freedom always better than a lack of freedom?" Well, doesn’t the answer to this question depend on what sort of freedom is at stake and what one might receive in compensation for losing that particular sort of freedom? No human being is free to do anything she might happen to want to d... Read more
The imminence of severe, debilitating birth defects is often cited as a just reason for abortion; an abortion in such instances is imagined to save the would-be child from a life of suffering. I have two questions about this: 1) If we endorse this reasoning, are we saying that the handicap in question is such that life for the child would literally not be worth living? 2) If (1) is true, does it follow that anyone who endorses this viewpoint should also counsel people who are presently living with such disabilities to kill themselves? (I.e., if a life is not worth beginning, why should it be worth continuing?) -ace
Oliver Leaman
December 7, 2006
(changed December 7, 2006)
Permalink
I think you are right on the implications of allowing abortion morally. It does suggest that there could be a quality of life so low that life would not be worth either initiating, or continuing. And that does not seem a ridiculous idea, does it? We say this of animals, and end their lives... Read more
Is time a logically coherent notion in the way we commonly understand it?
David Papineau
December 6, 2006
(changed December 6, 2006)
Permalink
We normally think of the passage of time in terms of a 'moving present'--a point that moves steadily futurewards along the temporal dimension, so to speak, and carries us along from our births to our deaths. However, many philosophers, from McTaggart on, have argued that this idea is inco... Read more
There is increasing evidence that there is an evolved "moral grammar" in human brains (which in some respects resembles Kantian moral philosophy). My question is, is it possible to have an ethical system that is entirely rational and unreliant on "hardwired" beliefs? Obviously any moral theory that relies on evolution commits the naturalistic fallacy (what helps animals to survive and reproduce has no bearing on what is good and bad). Case in point is utilitarianism, trumpeted as an entirely secular and rational moral philosophy. But why would "anti-utilitarianism"--the ethical theory that prescribes the greatest pain for the greatest number--be, logically speaking, any less valid than utilitarianism? The assumption that pain is bad and pleasure is good appears to be "hardwired" and without rational basis. These questions leave me in some doubt about the viability of moral philosophy, since all moral theories seem to include premises that I have no reason to accept.
Matthew Silverstein
December 5, 2006
(changed December 5, 2006)
Permalink
You pose one of the great challenges confronting philosophical ethics: explaining the rational basis of morality. If your last claim--that all moral theories include premises you have no reason to accept--is correct, then I don't see how the challenge can be met. A number of philosoph... Read more
What is the current take on Chomsky's 'language acquisition is hard-wired into the brain' theory? I remember reading ten years or so ago that a scientist had isolated a gene that led to kids having trouble learning to speak normally (I have no citation, unfortunately). Would this be proof that Chomsky was right?
Gabriel Segal
December 3, 2006
(changed December 3, 2006)
Permalink
On my website there is a draft of a paper, labelled ''Poverty of Stimulus arguments', which provides a reasonably comprehensive review of the evidence that favours the hypothesis that humans have some innate special-purpose machinery dedicated to language acquisition.... Read more
If eyes had never evolved, would LIGHT still exist (or: be manifest)? By this I do not mean: would there still be electromagnetic radiation of a certain range of wavelengths (there would, of course). Rather, I mean: in the absence of eyes, would there still be brightness, luminance, illumination (i.e. what we ordinarily call 'light')? I am aware of course that, according to physics, light simply IS electromagnetic radiation of a certain range of frequencies. However, does this mean that things are, so to speak, illuminated "in themselves"? Or, contrariwise, is it the case that, in order to get what we ORDINARILY call 'light' (brightness, luminance etc., as opposed to Maxwell's equations), we must also take into account the way that electromagnetic waves excite our rods and cones etc.? In other words, without eyes -- and, therefore, without VISIBILITY -- would the entire universe remain 'in the dark'? Does it indeed make any sense to speak of the universe being either 'dark' or 'illuminated' in the absence of vision and visibility? Or -- to speak more generally -- would there be any 'phenomena' (i.e. would anything be 'manifest'), without a subject or dative TO WHOM they appear/manifest themselves? Any suggestions for reading on this issue -- especially scientifically informed literature -- would be greatly appreciated.
Louise Antony
November 30, 2006
(changed November 30, 2006)
Permalink
I think you've pretty much answered your own question. You see (get it?) that light could exist even in the absence of any creatures sensitive to it. And of course in such a situation, there would be no one and nothing experiencing the light. So is anything visible? "Visible," like m... Read more