Recent Responses
Prior to the mass availability of condoms, and reliable birth control it seems to me that the act of sex had a very different meaning than it does now. It seems to me that "lust" had a very logical and sane basis for it to be feared. If you had sex then babies would likely happen as a result and unless both parents were prepared to take care of that baby then that would be a bad thing. Of course there were institutions like prostitution or even sacred prostitution that I imagine involved some kind of blunt surgery to prevent child birth. I don't know really what kind of evils which were really tangible in a way that a baby is tangible, or lack of evils that that institutions provided that may have lead people to condemn prostitution as products of an evil called "lust". Anyways people tend to want a lot of sex and prostitution has a limited availability. So when people say that we live in an age where people are more "enlightened" about sex I can't help but to wander if that is the case? Isn't our so called "enlightenment" over sex really just a product of a new technological environment? Also what when we condemn "lust" these days aren't we doing it for different reasons than we have done historically? (Perhaps out of force of habit?-or perhaps excepting those who do not believe in any form of birth control- who seem to have different reasons for opposing "lust" than people who are okay with birth control)
Charles Taliaferro
February 25, 2012
(changed February 25, 2012)
Permalink
Very interesting! I suspect that you are quite correct that the advent of birth control has done much to alter many people's assessment of the meaning of sex. And it may be that (depending on the kind of birth control used) some of the ethical implications of sex has changed. So,... Read more
A recent questioner asked if there are any more dialogue-based--as opposed to strict question-and-answer format--places on the internet to discuss philosophy. The replies took the questioner to be implying a kind of unregulated "philosophical chat room" where anyone can throw out their dubious reasoning and call it philosophy. That may characterize many internet forums, regardless of the subject matter, but there is, I think, a middle ground between this site's ask-the-experts format (which I greatly appreciate, don't get me wrong!) and chats/blogs by people who are totally unqualified to comment meaningfully on philosophical issues. Are there any blogs that you would *recommend* for the level of discourse that, at least sometimes, is displayed there between professional philosophers and, perhaps, thoughful "lay-people" (i.e., where philosophically disciplined and thoughtful people talk to each other)?
William Rapaport
February 23, 2012
(changed February 23, 2012)
Permalink
Here are two suggestions. The first is less of a philosophy blog and more of a metaphilosophy blog, but it often has useful links to other blogs that you might like:
"Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog / News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intel... Read more
According to posters placed around my college 40% of women and 60% of men believe that rape is acceptable in some circumstances such as if a girl uses a guy for money. I contacted one of authors of that study but I received no response from her. I've tried to track down the veracity and basis of that claim but I can't and I think it's an unlikely claim. Does this show a lack of interest in feminist issues within society and on college campus? I really feel that it does. When I see stuff like that I want to know what I can do to correct it because I care enough for feminism that I don't like the idea that a movement that implicitly characterizes feminism as irrational and incapable of taking facts seriously has gained ascendency at the expense of other discourses that might change the world for the better.
Miriam Solomon
February 23, 2012
(changed February 23, 2012)
Permalink
One thing you could do is do a library search on the author(s) names, perhaps have a librarian help you. You are quite right to have high standards for empirical claims. Be careful not to let "I think it's an unlikely claim" have too much weight; the reason we do empirical studies is b... Read more
Is atheism a scientific worldview? Many people who try to promote atheism seem to think so.
Andrew Pessin
February 22, 2012
(changed February 22, 2012)
Permalink
Well much depends on what "scientific" is taken to mean (obviously), and there are plenty of philosophers who think that science strongly supports, provides evidence for, theism -- or at least that science is essentially neutral on the question of theism/atheism. But what does seem deni... Read more
Are all non-self-contradicting ethics systems equal? Say I don't physically discipline a child because I believe it is unethical to intentionally harm another human. Do I have any reason to say that another person ought not to physically discipline their child if they believe that there is nothing unethical about harming another?
Stephen Maitzen
February 22, 2012
(changed February 22, 2012)
Permalink
Good question. You ask if all self-consistent ethical systems are equal, by which I take it you mean "equally plausible," "equally likely to be true," or "equally defensible." The crude sample principles you gave might suggest an affirmative answer to that question, but only because t... Read more
I read somewhere that a human being's DNA is almost the same as a rat's. (I think the percentage of similarity is 90%.) In other words, we're animals. If I saw a group of grey squirrels killing a group of brown squirrels in a park, I wouldn't judge the actions of the grey squirrels as "immoral." I would just wait for a biologist to give me some explanation. (There is a limited supply of nuts in the park; the grey squirrels have a mutation in their brain that makes them overly aggressive; etc.) So when one group of human beings commits genocide against a different group of human beings, why do we label it as "immoral" when we wouldn't do the same for squirrels (considering that humans are merely animals in the end.)
Stephen Maitzen
February 19, 2012
(changed February 19, 2012)
Permalink
The knowledge that human beings are animals didn't, of course, await the discovery of DNA. We've known it for millennia. But your question puts enormous weight on our being merely animals: the word "merely" is being asked to do all the argumentative work. I take it you're suggesting... Read more
Are certain artistic mediums more adept at expressing human experience than others?
Douglas Burnham
February 25, 2012
(changed February 25, 2012)
Permalink
In theplayful spirit of Professor Nahmias, let me defend architecture! What could be more fundamental human experiences than sheltering; being safe and warm; having a place that is yours or your family's; having a place that is private (these are all descriptions of the home); or altern... Read more