Excellent question! Uninhabited land (Iceland, prior to the Vikings) seems relatively problem-free about rights to inhabit (though some cases are controversial as they involve competing nations, e.g. who has the right to inhabit the moon? --see the Moon Treaty). Native populations seem to have a natural primacy or entitlement to habitation that would supersede those who would claim a right to the land by way of conquest or land-use (following a quasi-Lockean notion that a people may lose its entitlement to property if the property is ill used or not used at all). In American history, alas, some Native Americans sold land to Europeans and so they conferred their right to be in America to nonNative Americans, though some of these sales may well be less than voluntary or transparent in implications to Native populations, and some Native lands were taken from Natives on the grounds of war settlements (some Native Americans sided with the Crown during the American Revolution, and so they were considered...

Excellent question! You are right that utilitarianism or other ethical theories may well be able to advance causes that are central to a feminist outlook. The reason why an ethics of care has been historically associated with feminism is largely because it was seen as an important contrast to the mostly male dominated field of ethics in which justice and impartial rationality were seen as central. So, at one point John Rawls was seen as the leading architect in post-world war two ethics of a rational political theorist (celebrating a thought experiment in which one imagines oneself behind a veil of ignorance). When Carol Gilligan then came of the scene with an ethics of care, it was supposed by many that Gilligan was the feminist response to the more male oriented Rawlsian framework. But really there is no reason in principle why one could not embrace Rawls' outlook and feminism (or many or most feminist ideals), and one could embrace some versions of an ethics of care and yet (because of some...

Very interesting! Consider two options, among others: one is that great literary works might be (as you suggest) akin to instrumental music. Such music may have emotive features (joy, anger, expressions of longing...) that are difficult to put into words and that is why your friends seem a bit weak in terms of their ability to state these deep truths. But secondly there might be deep truths that are not merely about emotions, but one finds hard to articulate because of a lack of vocabulary. Imagine one finds Tolkien's Lord of the Rings very moving and revealing but one cannot quite say why. Imagine (what seems likely) that Tolkien's trilogy raises questions about the ultimate meaning of life and the possibility of transcendent purpose, but that the reader is completely secular and has no vocabulary or training by which to put these matters into words.

Probably Karl Popper's work comes the closest. Get his book (I believe in two volumes) on the enemies of a free society. His work was taken seriously by eastern Europeans who were under the authority of the Soviet Union. Popper provided them with an alternative perspective by which to offer a critique of communism. Popper's work is systematic and fair (except in the case of his critique of Plato, which I believe to be based on a partial misreading of Plato) and historical. A book that is less historical but is profoundly anti-collectivism (and thus communism) is Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia. The latter is full of great arguments, colorful examples, and well worth a slow read.

Yes. In the 19th century there were debates over beauty and nature, specifically there was a dispute between Darwin and Wallace about whether evolution could account for natural beauty. Wallace (the co-discoverer of evolution) thought natural beauty signaled something more vital and valuable than can be seen as a by-product of natural selection and adaption. The 19th century also held (or Kant and Hegel did) that natural objects (unlike works of art) lacked an "aboutness"; Constable's painting of a storm might be about the transience of life, whereas the storm itself does not bear out such meaning. Lots of other debates on aesthetics and nature were initiated that are still with us (the difference between beauty and the sublime). Probably the most lively current exchange among philosophers that bears on your experience concerns the extent to which one needs to know ecology (or the relevant natural sciences) to deeply (or more deeply) appreciate the natural world. Would your experience of a valley...

I understand. I believe you are making the point that (in the case of the boyfriend and the job) we do not always have duties to minimize the stress or pain of others. In the two cases you cite, I think we can even propose that you have zero obligation of any sort to relieve stress. In the case of raising nonhuman animals, however, the case is different (they are not suffering, if they are suffering at all due to the aftereffect of a fair competition, because of a romantic competition or competition on a job front; rather they are made the direct object of suffering for the sake of benefiting another party). So, I suggest that if we do have reason to believe that, say, chickens are the object of directly inflicted suffering, this is something to take seriously ethically. Two things can be said on behalf of your position: while I think chickens have feelings and plants do not (plants lack brains, nervous system...), it may be that by allowing them to be free range or not overly cramped, you are able...

An excellent question! I think that the answer lies in terms of the urgency of the relevant decision-making. Insofar as some issue (take energy policy) is being determined in the next election, and your vote or not voting will give an advantage to one policy over the other, I think you have a duty to form as sound an opinion on the topic as possible. If you honestly think you lack the competency to vote either way, perhaps you should refrain from voting (even if that has the foreseen consequence of giving one side an advantage), but insofar as you can form a responsible (though fallible) judgement, I think you should act on that basis. In matters that are not urgent (e.g. should the USA seek to colonize Mars) I suggest there is no civic duty to become informed on the topic.

This is an important question. Most philosophers today probably think that an overall metaphysical framework (theism or karma...) is not necessary to secure universal ethical codes or to preserve their authority and normative force. And assuming a stable world order in which there is wide agreement on what is just or unjust (and a willingness to enforce principles of justice with force), it may be thought than an appeal to a supernatural or sacred reality is not necessary. But in a case in which there are no human or natural guarantees that justice will prevail, matters shift. Consider Darwin's situation. He remained confident till the end that it will always be in our general self-interest to be kind and just, etc, but he did not think this was necessarily so and he also thought it quite natural that stronger races would seek to exterminate weaker ones. If one is a theist, one has an account of why such exterminations are wrong (they are cosmic sins, and contrary to the will and nature of the...

Good question! It might seem harmless to think of a person objectively or even to think of him or her as an object (e.g. "she is the object of my love and attention"). But when it is used derisively, it seems that to objectify someone is to not take their subjectivity or character seriously as important for its own sake. In this sense, one objectifies a person by treating him or her merely as an object, and possibly an object to be used for one's self-interest, e.g. a man may objectify a woman by thinking of her merely as an object of desire or arousal and not as important and worthy of respect for her own sake.

I suggest one of the ways is by monitoring when you feel happy or sad. When you are with someone (Skippy), do you feel happy? When Skippy is not around, do you feel sad? If so, this is one of the marks of love. Further reflection will then be in order: what is it about being with Skippy makes you happy? Maybe Skippy likes you and you like being liked. This would not be enough, I suggest, to indicate whether you actually love Skippy her or himself. When you get to the point of realizing that you are delighting in the sheer goodness and well being of Skippy and that when you are sad, you miss the presence of Skippy, then I think you have quite a bit of evidence that: you are in love.