Recent Responses
Can people be held responsible for their emotions? Or, why can't people be held responsible for their emotions?
Jyl Gentzler
October 7, 2006
(changed October 7, 2006)
Permalink
I agree that the idea of being held responsible for our emotions ispuzzling. It seems that in order to be responsible for X, it has tohave been up to me whether to X. Actions seem to be good candidates forresponsibility, since they seem to be something over which I havecontrol– when someone an... Read more
In ethics, philosophers spend much time trying to figure out what is moral and immoral. My question is, why should we necessarily be moral? Where does this obligation to be moral come from or why do we have this obligation?
Jyl Gentzler
October 7, 2006
(changed October 7, 2006)
Permalink
I agree that on one understanding of the question “Why should I bemoral?” the question is unintelligible. But I think that when mostpeople ask the question, “Why should I be moral?” they are asking aquestion that is short-hand for more substantive questions, like “Whyshould I tell the truth?”... Read more
Socrates said "It is better to suffer evil than to do it". I am trying to work out if a consequentialist could make good sense of this claim, if anyone can!
Jyl Gentzler
October 7, 2006
(changed October 7, 2006)
Permalink
Socrates makes this remark in the Gorgias in a context in which he’s arguing against Polus’ conception of the good life– that is, the life that is good for the person who is living it. He is not arguing for the greater importance of moral value over prudential value (or what Sally calls indiv... Read more
Since all science is inductive (based on limited observation of patterns), to what extent does science prove anything? Are all scientific conclusions ultimately reducible to theoretical speculation? If so, how can we ever speak of causes in nature?
Peter Lipton
October 7, 2006
(changed October 7, 2006)
Permalink
You are right about proof. No scientific prediction can be proven from the scientific data, since it always remains possible for the data to be correct yet the prediction mistaken. The same goes for scientific claims about unobserved causes in nature. But it doesn't follow that we have no r... Read more
Socrates said "It is better to suffer evil than to do it". I am trying to work out if a consequentialist could make good sense of this claim, if anyone can!
Jyl Gentzler
October 7, 2006
(changed October 7, 2006)
Permalink
Socrates makes this remark in the Gorgias in a context in which he’s arguing against Polus’ conception of the good life– that is, the life that is good for the person who is living it. He is not arguing for the greater importance of moral value over prudential value (or what Sally calls indiv... Read more
In ethics, philosophers spend much time trying to figure out what is moral and immoral. My question is, why should we necessarily be moral? Where does this obligation to be moral come from or why do we have this obligation?
Jyl Gentzler
October 7, 2006
(changed October 7, 2006)
Permalink
I agree that on one understanding of the question “Why should I bemoral?” the question is unintelligible. But I think that when mostpeople ask the question, “Why should I be moral?” they are asking aquestion that is short-hand for more substantive questions, like “Whyshould I tell the truth?”... Read more
Socrates said "It is better to suffer evil than to do it". I am trying to work out if a consequentialist could make good sense of this claim, if anyone can!
Jyl Gentzler
October 7, 2006
(changed October 7, 2006)
Permalink
Socrates makes this remark in the Gorgias in a context in which he’s arguing against Polus’ conception of the good life– that is, the life that is good for the person who is living it. He is not arguing for the greater importance of moral value over prudential value (or what Sally calls indiv... Read more
I have a question about sexual ethics and "informed consent". Just what does it mean to be informed about sex such that you can give informed consent?? It seems that it shouldn't be a matter of age but a matter of information. A fifteen year old can take a health class and/or read materials about the consequences of sex, and it seems this 15 year old could be better informed than an 18 year old who grew up in, say, a very traditional society wherein sex was a taboo subject. Also, doesn't being informed about something as physical as sex depend on having had it? I can't imagine being truly informed if you've never experienced it, can you? But if one could, and the law considers it can be gained without actually experiencing it, then couldn't you just "inform" a minor about sex, then have sex with that person, then argue that they gave informed consent. I mean, why does the law harp so much on the age of the minor? Is the true motivation really that they're "informed", or is it something else?
Oliver Leaman
October 5, 2006
(changed October 5, 2006)
Permalink
You raise a good point about the rather arbitrary fixing of age limits for various activities. Of course there will always be those over the limit who do not really understand what they are doing, and those under who do, but that is inevitable in any rough and ready measure based on age. The... Read more
What are the strongest arguments which suggest that morality truly exists? Couldn't all actions just be rational and self-motivated and "morality" merely be a term we place on these actions to make ourselves feel good, when in fact it doesn't actually exist? Thank you =)
Miranda Fricker
October 4, 2006
(changed October 4, 2006)
Permalink
I think one has to ask oneself what it would be for 'morality to truly exist'. Most ethicists would perhaps agree that morality could not consist of facts or properties that (in J. L. Mackie's phrase - see his Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong) are part of 'the fabric of the world'. That's... Read more
I’m a little ashamed for asking this question but I feel I’m in need of some guidance regarding politics. I reached the age where I’m allowed to vote quite some time ago, but to be honest feel if I did it would be more like filling in a lottery ticket rather than voting so I haven’t. There’s much of politics and our political system that I don’t understand. With all the rhetoric involved in the media it’s hard to know who to believe. Politicians could make these promises and break them as soon as they’re in. There seems to be so many variables involved and the whole thing’s a bit overwhelming. For example, maybe one particular policy sounds like a good idea and addresses an issue that’s close to me. But then what if the money used for this could be put to better use elsewhere? What if this solution helps in the short term, but puts us right up the creek after a decade? What the heck do I know about economics?? Should people like me (and I suspect there are many) leave the voting to those with the relevant expertise? If not, what should we do and how do we go about it? Is there an idiots guide to politics?
Nicholas D. Smith
October 3, 2006
(changed October 3, 2006)
Permalink
Winston Churchill once claimed that "democracy is the worst form of government...except all the others that have been tried." On the other hand, he also once said, "the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
There is wisdom in both of his qu... Read more