Recent Responses
Although I have read many responses here that demonstrate a kind of wisdom, I doubt that the kinds of moral theories like utilitarianism or deontological ethics often mentioned here have much to do with this wisdom. I also doubt whether they have much to do with any serious moral problem. It almost seems like a caricature to switch from the serious, worried thinking that I had to do about whether, say, I must send my daughter to live with her grandparents in a different country given some real set of problems, to turn to a theory to tell me the answer? Not that these theories have got it all wrong; but they make something like an academic excercise or speculative problem out of a real moral problem, changing it in ways I don't understand but still feel are there. I would be happy to be wrong about this and would like to know your opinion. I suppose a secondary question is: what are moral philosophy departments for?
Lisa Cassidy
February 27, 2009
(changed February 27, 2009)
Permalink
I feel your pain. You like philosophy and want it to be relevant, but when confronted by real-life problems the theories always seem to fall flat.
As you observe, most ethical writing tends to be abstract, removed from actual cases, and too densely packed with fancy terms to be of use. T... Read more
How do philosophers (or academics in general) justify their choice of profession? How is it defensible to be studying esoteric ideas with relatively few (if any) implications for the greater good, rather than devoting one's life to solving the much more practical problems that burden so much of the world's population? I realize that some philosophical ideas have had important worldwide impacts and have directly improved people's lives, but I doubt that almost any philosophers working today would say that that's what they expect to come out of their analyzing a particular view of Wittgenstein's or whatever. (I think this question ought to be asked of most professions, but it seems that philosophers would be thinking about this sort of thing much more so than would, say, investment bankers.)
William Rapaport
February 28, 2009
(changed February 28, 2009)
Permalink
How does anyone (not just philosophers or other academics) justify a choice of profession? One does what one is good at and what one likes to do.
Academics in particular (philosophers included) need not apologize for their choice; we are, after all, teachers (in addition to being [p... Read more
During the 2004 Presidential Debate between George W. Bush and John Kerry campaign a young female college student asked John Kerry about abortion and his political position on this issue. Kerry responded first by asserting that he is a Roman Catholic and that he did not endorse or feel good about the practice; but he added that he also believed that “articles of faith”, by which I presume he meant a religious belief about the moral status of abortion, are not matters of legislation or law (a position I fundamentally agree with). Kerry’s response seems to assume that morality, or at least morality based on religion, should not be a part of law; however, it also appears to me that it is difficult to imagine where law would derive its power if not from some kind of (religious?) moral basis. I have been trying to see how Kerry’s comment is intelligible in light of the dilemma of how laws would have any kind of power, or that there would be any justification for their authority, without some kind of moral basis upon which law is built.
Richard Heck
February 26, 2009
(changed February 26, 2009)
Permalink
The question "What is the basis of morality?" is obviously an extremely difficult one, and it can sometimes seem as if there are as many answers to that question as there are philosophers who have thought about it. Or maybe more. But I take it that the questioner's central worry is whether... Read more
I have a new laptop with the ability to connect to any unsecured wireless Internet hot spot (e.g., at Starbucks). Is it ethical for me to connect to ANY free connection, even if I don't know whose it is, or if I suspect that it belongs to someone who is unaware that I am using it? On the one hand, the question seems to be, "just because my neighbor goes out and leaves his house unlocked, that does not give me the right to enter it without his permission." On the other hand, the wireless signal is in MY house, without asking for my consent, so why shouldn't I feel free to use it, since my neighbor sent it there? I realize that the legal answer to this question is all over the map, with some localities arresting people and others refusing to prosecute. I am only really concerned with the moral arguments for and against this.
Oliver Leaman
February 26, 2009
(changed February 26, 2009)
Permalink
There is a similar issue in the book by Rabelais called Pantagruel and Gargantua, I vaguely recall, where someone in the street enjoys smelling roast meat, and the owner of the meat prosecutes him for stealing the smell without paying for it. I believe that the decision of the court was t... Read more
Do we have an obligation from preventing one wild plant or animal species from wiping out another? For instance, is it morally problematic to introduce to an ocean habitat an exotic species of fish which goes on to drive species to extinction? (Set aside the question of whether such a thing might also be problematic on, say, practical grounds.) Or do we simply say: "Well, the exotic fish have just as much a right to survive as the natives, so let's not worry if the former kill off the latter."
Oliver Leaman
February 26, 2009
(changed February 26, 2009)
Permalink
I suppose we have the right to sponsor the sort of environment we favor, other things being equal, and where species live off each other we have to accept that there will be victims and there will be victors. Introducing a new and dangerous species seems wrong unless it has some practical... Read more
During the 2004 Presidential Debate between George W. Bush and John Kerry campaign a young female college student asked John Kerry about abortion and his political position on this issue. Kerry responded first by asserting that he is a Roman Catholic and that he did not endorse or feel good about the practice; but he added that he also believed that “articles of faith”, by which I presume he meant a religious belief about the moral status of abortion, are not matters of legislation or law (a position I fundamentally agree with). Kerry’s response seems to assume that morality, or at least morality based on religion, should not be a part of law; however, it also appears to me that it is difficult to imagine where law would derive its power if not from some kind of (religious?) moral basis. I have been trying to see how Kerry’s comment is intelligible in light of the dilemma of how laws would have any kind of power, or that there would be any justification for their authority, without some kind of moral basis upon which law is built.
Richard Heck
February 26, 2009
(changed February 26, 2009)
Permalink
The question "What is the basis of morality?" is obviously an extremely difficult one, and it can sometimes seem as if there are as many answers to that question as there are philosophers who have thought about it. Or maybe more. But I take it that the questioner's central worry is whether... Read more
Everything that happens, why does is it happen at the moment that it does and not the moment before or the moment after?
Peter Smith
February 26, 2009
(changed February 26, 2009)
Permalink
Why does there have to be a reason? Maybe some events occur when they do just by chance. There seems to be nothing incoherent about that idea. Indeed, that's how we think that the world actually works. For example, the law governing the radioactive decay of an unstable atomic nucleus seems... Read more
Is there any philosophical consolation for someone who's depressed?
Nicholas D. Smith
February 26, 2009
(changed February 26, 2009)
Permalink
It is my understanding that depression is a medical problem--and one that can be effectively treated. My advice (not especially philosophical, admittedly) is to have a talk with your physician.
Log in to post comments
I have recently been reading about Neanderthals who apparently buried their dead, cared for their sick, hunted with fairly sophisticated tools, made fire, made an instrument out of a bone (this is disputed), and certainly had the physical capacity for language (also much debated - hyoid bone etc). Can they be called "human" for want of a better word? Is language the key in defining us and them? Clearly they are a far cry from chimps so what criteria should we use? It is impossible to establish their thoughts but there was compassion and empathy surely at our level if they cared for their sick - one old skeleton with no teeth lived to an age which would have been impossible without him being "spoonfed". Does this imply a moral sense? From reconstructions they looked almost identical to us. So what, if anything, would set us apart?
Mitch Green
February 26, 2009
(changed February 26, 2009)
Permalink
Thank you for your excellent question. Assuming that your evidence about Neanderthals is approximately right, I think that you are asking not so much the question whether they are human--that tends to be understood as the question whether they are members of the species Homo sapiens, which... Read more
Complex language would seem to be beneficial to the survival of other species, so why are humans the only species with this trait?
Allen Stairs
February 26, 2009
(changed February 26, 2009)
Permalink
Because it didn't evolve in any other species.
That wasn't very helpful. More to the point, it may not even be true. For all we can say for sure, other hominid species (perhaps Neanderthal?) had language, but didn't survive. In any case, the question of just why a particular trait did or... Read more