Recent Responses
Mother Theresa accepted donations for her work from all sources - regardless of the background of the donors. She said that once the money was in her possession, she would put it to good use - its origin was irrelevant. The same argument has also been put forward by academic institutions who accept large sums of money for capital works from, e.g., donors with a known history of arms dealing. Was Mother Theresa wrong to accept this money? Should universities not accept such donations?
Alexander George
June 10, 2008
(changed June 10, 2008)
Permalink
If you look through papers in linguistics from the 1960s and '70s, you'll find many that were supported by Defense Department grants -- these include many papers by Noam Chomsky, a formidable critic of much of U.S. foreign policy. (The military believed that this research might lead to breakt... Read more
When dealing with people and the way they are, I always try to put myself in their shoes, and try to see things in their perspective. seeing things in this way, I always find a way to justify anyone's actions that would otherwise be considered wrong, hateful, dumb, etc. If someone does something insulting towards me, I'll find a way to not dislike that person, again, by thinking deep into what kind of reasoning goes on in the mind of the person who caused me harm. It seems like there's always a reason behind someone being the way they are... Whether it's their culture, their geographical location, their friends, music they listen to, clique, past experiences, political stance, something wrong with the wiring in their head. Being this way can both be a good thing and a bad thing. Good in a sense where I feel like there's always a good person behind their questionable actions, but bad in a way because... well... anything that anyone does can be justified (in my mind), and that just can't work, for obvious reasons. Am I being naive in thinking this way? Is it fair to be understanding of people's actions, and on the other side of the coin, understanding why people don't understand your actions and just take it the wrong way? And at what point do you draw the line and say to yourself, "I don't care what you've been through, there are certain things you did that you did where you should have known better"...
Kalynne Pudner
June 5, 2008
(changed June 5, 2008)
Permalink
On balance, I think the habit of trying to find the most charitable explanation for another person's action is an admirable one. And empathy can be a valuable tool for understanding people, heading off prejudice, rash judgment, undeserved condemnation. It also can be a vigorous intellectual exer... Read more
Can literature "tell the truth" better than other Arts or Areas of Knowledge?
My answer to this is a firm
Jonathan Westphal
July 9, 2008
(changed February 8, 2017)
Permalink
My answer to this is a firm "Yes". Novels, for example, "tell the truth" better than any other written material, with the exception things like diaries and letters, unless you think of the relevant passages of diaries and letters as though they were mini-novels.... Read more
This question is about suicide/death. Is it even possible to hold a preference between the alternatives of life and death, assuming materialism is true? When a person dies, his or her brain shuts down, hence their consciousness ceases (from everything we know). It seems impossible therefore to properly conceive of what it is like to be dead. Isn't it therefore illogical to state "I would rather be dead"?
Eddy Nahmias
June 5, 2008
(changed June 5, 2008)
Permalink
Your question makes me wonder how many people who commit suicide do so with the belief (1) that their consciousness will cease (their identity will end) and how many do so with the belief (2) that their consciousness (and identity) will continue but in a better existence (e.g., heaven). Though this... Read more
This question is partly inspired by Question 2170. There are obviously a great many specific arguments against theistic belief, but in general, most (as far as I can tell) boil down to the claim that there is not enough, or perhaps any at all, rational evidence for the existence of God, and since a rational person should only admit to those things for which he has an adequate amount of rational evidence, a rational person should not believe in God. Specifically, the claim seems to be that we should only "believe" in something if we first have rationally convincing evidence for it to be true. But, even if I acknowledge that there is little to no rational evidence for God's existence, does it necessarily follow that to believe in a deity is irrational? Put another way, is it possible to have a logically consistent theistic belief system against which the only argument is that there is not enough evidence to prove it to be true? Does the simple act of believing in something for which you don't have evidence render your entire belief system fundamentally flawed?
Gabriel Segal
June 3, 2008
(changed June 3, 2008)
Permalink
I think that the best argument against the existence of God is the standard one: if he as great as the leading religions make out, he would not have created a world like this one. Of course it is not a demonstrative argument. But I haven't come across a plausible response to it.
But accepting yo... Read more
The act of dealing arms is not morally wrong - it is argued. What is wrong is the use these arms are put to once traded. Can the same argument be applied to drug dealing?
Gabriel Segal
June 3, 2008
(changed June 3, 2008)
Permalink
I am not sure who argues that the act of dealing arms is not morally wrong. It looks like a bad argument to me. If you sell someone arms, then you have no guarantee that they won't use them to kill people illegitimately. In fact, often, that is just what happens. So it is imoral to deal arms. A... Read more
What makes me me? That is to say, what makes me different from another person? It's easy to answer in a general term. You are you, with different thoughts, emotions and DNA. But it's at DNA where the answer becomes confusing and tricky for me. As far as I am aware, DNA is the information of you, of which everything about you is first started, and where what you're current situation is stems from. Then, of course, it is probably correct to say that an exact matching strand of DNA will lead towards the exact same results after you are "born" or created (at least, to stuff that are not environmentally depending). Now, as far as i know, your brain, thoughts and consciousness all derived genetically and are not affected environmentally. So, and I'm sure this has been discussed a lot, if you where to clone yourself, you would expect somebody who looks exactly the same as you to be born. But then, what about the psychological side of it? Seeing as we both come form the same source, and all the information that makes us us is the same, how come he has a different consciousness than me? Why is it that he makes decisions independently from me, even though we are, in theory, the same? In short, what is it that makes him him, and not me? Why can I control myself and not control him? Why can I see my thoughts and not his? There must be something that he has that I do not have, yet, we are identical, because our DNA was the same. It's almost a kind of separate presence that allows me to be me, which allows me to see through my eyes and here through my ears, think my thoughts and control my hands. This exact clone of me must somehow have this as well, but it's not me, because I am not him, I am me. And seeing as he has my DNA, I can't get my head around why he would be different. Something must have changed, something must be different between us to make him different. Thanks in advance.
Thomas Pogge
June 1, 2008
(changed June 1, 2008)
Permalink
Some of your difficulty -- very reminiscient of Leibniz, by the way -- may be caused by the word "different." Take a very simple case, two water molecules perhaps. Are they different? In one sense, they are exactly the same. Yet in another sense they are different or (perhaps better) distinct. You c... Read more
What strikes many people as the most terrible aspect of suicide is the pain inflicted on those left behind. But does this mean that we are literally obligated to stay alive for other people? Even as I appreciate that to kill oneself hurts one's friends and family in an unbelievable way, it seems strange to me that anyone should have ultimately have any reason to live besides their own, personal happiness.
Thomas Pogge
June 1, 2008
(changed June 1, 2008)
Permalink
What about other decisions you face? Does it strike you as strange that anyone should ultimately have any reason to act other than in the service of their own personal happiness? If so, you are challenging all moral obligations and would find it just as strange that anyone should be "literally oblig... Read more
Most atheists presumably believe that there is insufficient evidence to justify belief in God. What I want to ask is: is there ANY evidence? Or none at all? Is there anything that the panelists might point to and say, "this counts as evidence that God exists"?
Allen Stairs
May 31, 2008
(changed May 31, 2008)
Permalink
I didn't respond earlier mainly because it was that time of year when college teachers are worried about grading exams and such. But I'm with Richard on this one: I find many of the discussion of evidence around this question not altogether helpful. There is, of course, evidence for God's existence,... Read more
In terms of a more universal perspective, what do you believe is the universal cause of all human actions? I believe self-gratification is the answer. I believe that in every action we make involves self-gratification in one way or another. I believe that on a subconscious level we analysis which actions will make us happier and most often choose the one that leads us to it. My only flaw that I know of about my assumption is service to others (via volunteer services). Yet I feel somehow some of the situations that arise during volunteer services can arise from someone else's need for self-gratification. I wanted a more professional opinion on the matter as well as perhaps an evaluation on my assumption.
Alexander George
May 31, 2008
(changed May 31, 2008)
Permalink
Several pertinent posts can be found in Question 362 and Question 2156.
Log in to post comments