Recent Responses

When something disastrous happens, like Katrina, "logic" says: so much the worse for a loving God. But for the believer, what comes out, instead, are things like "God never gives us more than we can handle" and "We have to praise the Lord, and thank him, that <i>we</i> are OK." Why? (Or is this just a psychological or sociological question? Or did I watch too much Fox news?)

Alan Soble November 11, 2006 (changed November 11, 2006) Permalink Plantinga writes, in the quoted passage, "what God sees as better is, of course, better. " Oh? Of course? Having solved to his own satisfaction the problem of evil, can Alvin also solve the Euthyphro-style dilemma that arises here? (1) A world is better because God sees it as better vs. (2)... Read more

Abortion

Given that reasonable people disagree whether abortion is murder, how can someone who truly examines their own opinion fail to choose either 'life begins at conception' or abortion should be legal in all cases? While it is conceptually difficult to rationalize that a zygote or embryo is a human life and should be afforded all rights due, it is equally difficult and, in fact likely, more abhorrent to say that human life doesn't begin until a fetus exits and is severed physically from the mother's body. Isn't any choice other than one of these two a complete failure to have any true belief?

Cheryl Chen November 9, 2006 (changed November 9, 2006) Permalink One way to approach this question is to think about what sorts of properties are morally significant. Some properties--such as the capacity to suffer or feel pain--might belong to a developing human life at some stages, but not others. A zygote probably doesn't feel pain, but it's plausible... Read more

Ethics Punishment

Lets say a man points a gun at someone's head with the intent of killing that person. Pulls the trigger, but for some reason the gun doesn't work. His action would in this case have been the same whether the gun worked or not. So shouldn't attempted murder be judged just as severe as murder? Should a person be judged by the result of the person's actions, or the intent of the person's action?

Matthew Silverstein November 9, 2006 (changed November 9, 2006) Permalink For my answer to a similar question, click here. Log in to post comments

Justice

Hi, Thanks for a fascinating site. One thing that I have often heard is that "You can't have rights without responsibilities", and I wondered if you could explain the reasoning behind that statement. Is it something that can be deduced using philosophy, or is it merely an assertion? Many thanks, Mark

Thomas Pogge November 6, 2006 (changed November 6, 2006) Permalink Rights give each of us claims on the conduct of others. Your right not to be tortured requires others to respect this right: not to torture you, not to order or abet your torture, and to organize their society so that you are safe from torture. Denying that others have such responsibilities... Read more

Law Punishment

When it comes to matters of law, are arguments for deterrence distinct from arguments about morality? Are practical concerns separate from moral judgment? It seems one thing to say "we should outlaw murder so as to prevent murder" and another to say "we should outlaw murder because it is wrong". -ace

Thomas Pogge November 6, 2006 (changed November 6, 2006) Permalink The two statements in quotes are surely different. But the first can also express a moral standpoint: that it is morally important to achieve a low murder rate. This moral standpoint is reflected in various more specific claims. 1. We should not inflict punishment or pain on anyone unless d... Read more

Logic

Suppose some condition A is identical to some condition B; to be concise, let's write A=B. It seems obvious, then, that A is necessary and sufficient for B; or more compactly, A<=>B. On the other hand, that implication's converse (i.e. that A<=>B implies A=B) seems like it isn't right, because we can easily come up with counter-examples. Take my mother, for example; she is always saying, "eating spinach everyday is a necessary and sufficient condition for becoming strong." In other words, she claims that you will become strong if, and only if, you eat spinach everyday. Surely it does not follow that becoming strong is identical to eating spinach...right? Now I am tempted to consider the question in the context of sets. Suppose you want to prove that two sets S and T are equal. Then it is sufficient to prove that membership in one follows from membership in the other, and vice versa. I.e. x is an element of S <=> x is an element of T. So it appears that the "=" relation follows from "<=>" relation. Unfortunately, I do not understand where I am going wrong. If it is easy to see why I am confused, could you help clarify this for me?

Alexander George November 3, 2006 (changed November 3, 2006) Permalink A nice question. Yes, if the predicate "F" and the predicate "G" are co-extensive (i.e., are true of exactly the same things), it would be wrong to conclude that the property corresponding to "F" is the same as the property corresponding to "G". (Nick gives some good examples of this i... Read more

Identity

Is there anything existing within or beyond the human body or mind that can be called I? If so, exactly where is I located?

Louise Antony November 2, 2006 (changed November 2, 2006) Permalink Paul Bloom, a developmental psychologist at Yale, has evidence that human beings are "natural dualists," who believe that minds are distinct from, and can exist separately from, their bodies. He's just published a book about his findings, called Descartes' Baby. In addition to the scient... Read more

Ethics Gender

My understanding is that, to enter the military, men and women must satisfy different basic physical standards. Women need not do as many push-ups, do as many sit-ups, run as fast, etc. The goal, I imagine, of these separate standards is to allow women -- who tend to be physically weaker -- to enter the military by expending the same effort (if not producing the same results) as men. My question, then, regards the man who is unable to pass the "man test" but can pass the "woman test." He is as physically capable as many of the women being admitted and, yet, simply by virtue of his gender, he is denied admission. Isn't this overtly sexist? Moreover, if the military thinks that there is some baseline minimum physical capability that every person ought to possess -- i.e., the capability for which they hold female applicants responsible -- then shouldn't anyone with that capability be allowed in? Surely, if the situation were reversed -- if women had to pass some artificially inflated test that attempted to "level the playing field" for men -- the uproar would be deafening.

Louise Antony November 2, 2006 (changed November 2, 2006) Permalink I agree with the thrust of your comments -- that there should be uniform physical requirements for anyone who wishes to serve in the military, and these requirements should be based on the physical demands of the jobs recruits will be required to do. But it's this second proposition that... Read more

Logic

Suppose some condition A is identical to some condition B; to be concise, let's write A=B. It seems obvious, then, that A is necessary and sufficient for B; or more compactly, A<=>B. On the other hand, that implication's converse (i.e. that A<=>B implies A=B) seems like it isn't right, because we can easily come up with counter-examples. Take my mother, for example; she is always saying, "eating spinach everyday is a necessary and sufficient condition for becoming strong." In other words, she claims that you will become strong if, and only if, you eat spinach everyday. Surely it does not follow that becoming strong is identical to eating spinach...right? Now I am tempted to consider the question in the context of sets. Suppose you want to prove that two sets S and T are equal. Then it is sufficient to prove that membership in one follows from membership in the other, and vice versa. I.e. x is an element of S <=> x is an element of T. So it appears that the "=" relation follows from "<=>" relation. Unfortunately, I do not understand where I am going wrong. If it is easy to see why I am confused, could you help clarify this for me?

Mind

Hi, I'm engaged in a debate with a mate of mine over John Searle's Chinese Room thought experiment. I believe that the room doesn't understand Chinese because it lacks reasoning and the ability to weigh up all possible options and recognize the most appropriate answer. All the answers are already there and the answer given is not selected by the room itself but by the person and is dependent solely on whatever it is that they say. His response to this (having weighed up all the possible options and recognized the most appropriate answer) was that we simply have different worldviews... that I'm an absolutist and he's an empiricist. What exactly does he mean by this? What are your individual views on the subject? Many thanks and great site. Keep up the good work =)

Nicholas D. Smith November 2, 2006 (changed November 2, 2006) Permalink I don't understand your friend's answer any better than you do, so I'm afraid I can't help you on that one! As for the Chinese Room, the case as I understand it is supposed to show that something could pass the Turing test--that is, it could provide correct outputs to given inputs--wit... Read more

Recent Responses

Pages