ask a question

recent responses

all topics

info

⚲

Ethics

This afternoon I experienced the following: while driving home through busy traffic I passed under a railway bridge, at which point traffic from another lane attempted to filter into mine. I had the opportunity to wait, and allow a car to filter in. However, I kept driving, and the car behind me waited, allowing the other driver into the main lane. Then I began wondering about whether providing someone else with the opportunity to perform a 'good' act (good here understood as referring to an act that is arguably beneficial to at least one other person, and does not cause harm to anyone) is itself a good act. Put more generally (and in the form of a question), if in performing an act that is detrimental to another we allow a third person the opportunity to perform a beneficial act where they would not otherwise have been able, can our first act be seen in a more positive light, or is still to be considered negatively?

Looks to me as if you were rude and the guy behind you was polite. I really don't think there is any positive value added to a negative act if it happens to result in--indeed, even if it can predictably lead or contribute to--some other agent being given the chance (and taking it) to do something good. If I shoot you while we are standing near a paramedic, whom I have every reason to believe will leap to your aid, does that make my shooting you a good thing, or somehow positive? So I am inclined to give the guy behind you credit...and that is all the credit to be given in the case you describe. In the meantime, you might think about who "owns" the road. If it isn't you, maybe you would do well to share it?
Ethics

What was the ethical way to handle the mountain-climber on Mt. Everest, David Sharp, who was passed over by 40 climbers as they left him for what they thought was dead?

I'm not entirely sure the facts are straight here. In the stories I read, many of the people who passed him by did not think he was dead. They could see that he was in trouble, but passed him by because they felt that if they attempted to help him, they would be denied the opportunity to reach the summit. If they really supposed he was already dead, I would be much more comfortable with their decision to reach the summit before coming back and helping to return his body to his loved ones. Those who passed Sharp by had gone to great expense and effort in getting as far as they had, but it still seems as if stopping to make some attempt to help a fellow human being in desperate trouble is morally mandated by any proper conception of ethics. I read that some who were there did provide Sharp with oxygen, and did what they could to comfort and save him--despite their own interests in summiting. I find it difficult to imagine how those who passed him by, knowing that he was still...
Ethics

A girlfriend showed me a short story in which a group of women on a kibbutz broke the hymen of an infant girl in a ceremonial, ritualistic manner. The act deprived any male from doing so--a kind of preemptive strike against male dominace, violence, etc. My question is, was this choice ethical? Is belief in an ideology or movement like feminism reason enough to alter the body of an infant who cannot object? If Jews perform a bris on infant males as a foundational religious practice, why not accept hymen perforation on secular feminist grounds? Thanks for your consideration.

I hope others will also weigh in on this one, because I really find this kind of question quite complicated. On the one hand, I can understand your analogy to infant male circumcision: In both cases, a kind of decision that the child might wish to be able to make for him- or herself later in life is being taken away in infancy. This, indeed, seems to me to be one of the strongest reasons to oppose infant male circumcision and/or hymen perforation (or for that matter, any other non-essential modification to the body of an infant or minor child). On the other hand, there are also some disanalogies here, which may make significant differences. For one thing, the bris is now a well-establish and deeply ingrained religious ritual, with profound meaning within a religion in which it is regarded as a sign of a covenant with God, going back thousands of years. In the latter case, you are talking about considering whether starting what may or may not turn out to be a new ritual that has...
Ethics

I'm in a quandary. My question relates to when does a person's decisions about their own life become reliant on others' decisions; who should have the last say, as it were. My mother, an emigrant who returned to her own country, was recently widowed and has expressed a wish to return to the country where her children are, thus leaving her native country again. Her children, including me, have grave reservations as we think, amongst other considerations, that the trauma of the move may well impact on her health and actually shorten her life. I think she knows this and wants to move back anyway. Apart from all the obvious issues about grief and getting old and frail, for me a big issue is who am I to say she shouldn't come back? Because her decision would require co-operation of her children, does that mean our views should over ride hers? Because she is elderly, should our views have more validity than hers? I don't think there is a right or wrong solution to this but I would appreciate your thoughts. ...

As you say, there may be no simply right or wrong answer to your question. It is one that many of us whose parents are aging have to face, in different ways. But here are a few suggestions. First, I would propose (and can well imagine other philosophers reacting negatively, so stay tuned to see other reactions to your question!) that the best way to try to answer your question would be to avoid, as much as possible, trying to conceive of it in terms of one-size-fits-all general moral principles. If you and your other family members simply act on the basis of such principles, I think you will find that there are several that might seem to apply, and they may not all lead to the same results. And the worst risk of approaching it this way is that you find that you or other members of your family cannot actually LIVE in accordance with the supposedly right principle you settle on. Instead, start here: This is your MOTHER we are talking about. I hope there is love involved in this decision,...
Ethics
Sex

In Western culture, polygamy is generally considered immoral. Is there sufficient justification for this classification? Can it honestly be said that polygamy is wrong? I don't only mean one man/many wives but all the various possible arrangements of multiple partners, for instance one woman/multiple husbands, multiple husbands/multiple wives, etc.... There are some economic advantages to multiple adult partners living together. Take for example a situation where a man has two wives. The man works and so does one of the women. You now have a dual income household. The second woman does not work, but instead stays home and cares for any children and housekeeping duties. What would normally fall on one woman (working, housekeeping and child-rearing) is divided between two. It is assumed that all parties are consenting adults who consider themselves equal to one another. This has the added advantage of reducing the child day care costs so often frustrating for households with just two parents who...

I am inclined to think the original ground for anathematizing polygamy may be found in religions that oppose it for doctrinal reasons. I would be willing to wager that these same reasons continue to be the main source of such opposition. But it is not the only reason to be wary of polygamy. As a matter of fact, as it has actually been practiced (and is practiced in parts of the world where it is legal), it is almost always configured in ways intended to advantage men--at the expense of women. (A very dramatic example of this, involving a fundamentalist wing of the Latter Day Saints [Mormons] in Utah is not much in the news, for example.) As you say, there can be prudential advantages to being far more open about marital arrangements. But there can also be significant prudential disadvantages, as well: The more people intimately involved in a single household, the more potentials for serious conflict are added. Unless one lives in a society in which the relevant sorts of arrangements...
Ethics

I have background knowledge in philosophy but I now live in a place where I have discovered no source of any remote answer to the question about ethics which I formulate below. (Honestly). Three propositions follow: (1) Male cardinals are red (2) Hamburgers are delicious (3) Lying is wrong Consider (1) first. To dogs, the color blind, the blind simpliciter, or bees, male cardinals just aren't red. Male cardinals are not red in the same sense that there are 12 ounces of Budweiser in that can. My claim here is that it is actually FALSE that male cardinals are red. What's really true is that we PERCEIVE male cardinals to be red, and others do not. The same can clearly be said about (2), since hamburgers probably taste awful to vegetarian species. I see no reason why we can't similarly say that (3) is 'subjective' as well in that lying is only wrong because we experience the feeling that lying is wrong. Ethical theories like utilitarianism, deontology, divine command theory, etc. don't really...

If I reply that something has gone wrong in your reasoning, you will accuse me of begging the question! At any rate, that is what I think. Here's why: First of all, although I take your point that the redness of male cardinals is not something those who are color blind (or simply blind) can experience in the same way you or I do (assuming you are neither color blind nor blind), but that does not make the claim that male cardinals are red false ! It just means that its truth is not (easily) discernable to those unable to sense it directly. (After all, the redness of male cardinals could be established by measurements of the frequencies of light their feathers reflect. But perhaps now we can quibble about what "red" really means, so let's move to your main point. Before we do, however, note that my stipulation here shows that there IS an objective correlate, and that in the whole story of "red" there will be at least some reality "out there," as it were.) As for lying, the first thing I...
Ethics
Value

WHAT IS GOOD? DONALD S. AMHERST MA.

German chocolate cake is good! ;) Kidding aside, philosophers have identified several ways of trying to answer this question, and I will allow those whose views are different from mine to provide their own replies. As for me, I am inclined to follow the view of the ancient Greeks, who supposed that there may be several sorts of goods, but that ultimately the highest good for human beings is eudaimonia (a Greek word that is difficult to translate, but which is usually translated as "happiness" or--my own preference--as "flourishing"). But what is eudaimonia? Perhaps the clearest answer to this question is given by Aristotle in Book I of the Nicomachean Ethics . There, Aristotle identifies the highest good for human beings as something that must be (a) distinctly human (hence pleasure, though generally good, cannot be the highest good for human beings), (b) something for the sake of which we do what we do, but which we choose for its own sake, and not only for the sake of some...
Ethics
Value

One virtue that I see in people I admire is curiosity. As far as I know, it was not a classical virtue, and its only appearances in the Bible resulted in someone being expelled from the garden or turned into a pillar of salt. What do ethical philosophers have to say about curiosity?

I agree that curiosity is a great virtue, but I disagree that it was not a classical virtue. You are simply looking at the wrong "classics"! It is no surprise that curiosity is treated with suspicion (at best) in religious works whose whole goal is to get the reader to follow certain dogmas or patterns of thought. Curiosity is the very thing that overturns dogmas and questions all authorities, and those promoting dogmas and authority (usually their own) know this well. But not all "classical works" were devoted to the promotion and maintenance of special dogmas or authorities. Have a look at ancient Greek philosophy, and see what they say about (and how much they exemplify) this great virtue of curiosity. Specifically, look through a book on the presocratic philosophers and ask yourself how curious they must have been, to come up with such theories to explain the world around them. Read Plato's Apology and find out how Socrates dedicated (and ultimately forfeited) his life in...
Ethics
Law
Sex

Hello, I would like to ask a question about ethics involved when nudity is permitted in public places. I live in Sydney, Australia. At one of the most popular beaches here (which hosts tens of thousands of people per day and is freely available to anyone who wishes to go there), a man was arrested and fined $500. This was punishment because he had been on the beach with a camera, surreptitiously photographing women who were lying on the sand, with no tops on. He was discreet such that almost none knew at the time that he had photographed them - after they apprehended him, police went around with his camera, identifying people and approaching them with the images in hand. Many people using this beach choose to sunbathe disrobed, of their own free will. The man admitted that his actions were intended to further his own sexual gratification. Although I think the man's behaviour was in poor taste, using others as mere means to his own selfish ends, on consideration I cannot see why it should be held...

As a matter of prudence, I am inclined to agree with the arguments of the questioner--if one does not want others to photograph one's exposed breasts (or other body parts), one should keep them covered in public. On the other hand, I don't think that the issue is quite as simple as this. The man who was arrested admitted that he used the photos for his own sexual gratification. But what if he was posting them on a website--perhaps for profit? I think there are somewhat thorny issues here, and do think that the most important ones have to do with legal protections of personal privacy, and where the lines get drawn on this issue. Does appearing in public mean that anyone can photograph me for any purpose whatsoever? That does seem a bit much to me! Here is another example--what do you think of the idea of a pedophile photographing children swimming or running around on a beach in the nude (as one can see in lots of places in the world)? No problem here? I guess I would caution the questioner...
Ethics
Religion

Has anyone come up with an adequate or nearly adequate reply to the Euthyphro Dilemma or has it so far proved the nail in the coffin to the Divine Command Theory? Thanks.

Although I agree with Peter Lipton (having actually recently made such arguments in a commentary I did with Thomas Brickhouse on the Euthyphro itself, in the Routledge Guidebook to Plato and the Trial of Socrates , I think it is also fair to mention that some theistic philosophers have recently attempted to defend the Divine Command Theory (DCT), by arguing that it makes sense to think that something might become morally required as a result of God commanding it. Have a look at Philip Quinn's Divine Commands and Moral Requirements (Oxford, 1978), 30-52. I personally do not think this avoids the problem (because we can still ask why God would command it in the first place, in which case, the only available options seem to be "because it is good," which seems to defeat the DCT, "for no reason," which seem to make divine commands completely arbitrary, or "for some reason other than that it is good," which would seem to there being some non-good reason for God's commands, or perhaps...

Pages