Recent Responses
Why do most philosophers assume that there is one manner of justifying ethics? Couldn't it be that some ethical principles or rules can be justified by a consequentialist approach, others by an evolutionary approach, still others by a deontological approach and some are just relative to specific cultures?
Allen Stairs
November 1, 2007
(changed November 1, 2007)
Permalink
In many fields there are what some people call lumpers and splitters. Douglas has given a splendid answer that reflects a lumper/unifier/hedgehog perspective. Here's a rather different take, from a splitter/diversifier/fox point of view.
It's often held that ethical obligations trump all oth... Read more
Why do most philosophers assume that there is one manner of justifying ethics? Couldn't it be that some ethical principles or rules can be justified by a consequentialist approach, others by an evolutionary approach, still others by a deontological approach and some are just relative to specific cultures?
Allen Stairs
November 1, 2007
(changed November 1, 2007)
Permalink
In many fields there are what some people call lumpers and splitters. Douglas has given a splendid answer that reflects a lumper/unifier/hedgehog perspective. Here's a rather different take, from a splitter/diversifier/fox point of view.
It's often held that ethical obligations trump all oth... Read more
What are the names of some respected philosophers or schools of thought that believe things are as they should be in the sense that much of what we consider to be bad is in fact of value to life when considered in a larger context?
Oliver Leaman
November 1, 2007
(changed November 1, 2007)
Permalink
I suppose the obvious person to think of here is Leibniz, cruelly mocked by Voltaire in Candide for arguing that this is the best of all possible worlds, if he did argue in such a manner, that is. But a large number of philosophers, especially in the philosophy of religion, have found expla... Read more
How does chaos theory effect Mill's philosophical interpretations? It seems that through chaos theory and the butterfly effect, it is impossible for anyone to know what action is the one that will create the most happiness in the world. It doesn't even have to be extreme cases like someone saving a child Hitler from drowning. But even in regular every day cases, every action we take has literally billions of results that are impossible to know about and thus a person would never know which action was the morally right one. Did Mill take this into account in his writings?
David Brink
November 1, 2007
(changed November 1, 2007)
Permalink
Insofar as a system is chaotic, it is impossible to predict all the consequences of actions we perform. Many systems, while not literally chaotic, are still complex, with the result that predictions about the total consequences of one's actions are difficult and not fully reliable. But it's... Read more
I cannot understand why Wittgenstein's considerations about rule-following had such a large impact in many areas of philosophy. May you explain it to me?
Pascal Engel
October 28, 2007
(changed October 28, 2007)
Permalink
This is a very good question. But there are several layers of answers, depending upon the question is asked from the point of view of the sociology of philosophy, the point of view of the history of it, or from the point of view of the intrinsic interest of a philosophical problem. If you qu... Read more
Should you always expose the truth to the ones you love, even when it may do them harm by knowing?
Peter S. Fosl
October 26, 2007
(changed October 26, 2007)
Permalink
No, I think there are times when it's better to conceal the truth. Part of wisdom in ethics involves not just being truthful but knowing when and how the truth should be told. Mind you, there are good reasons for being maximally truthful; but they do not count in every case.... Read more
What happens to Justice when a state is in democratic transition (that is to say, moving from a regime that was percieved as commiting atrocities against its own people or violating its citizens' human rights in some way - Taiwan and the "228" incident, Poland and the whole issue of "lustration", South Africa, etc.)? The TRC in South Africa, for example, went for restorative justice, while in other cases many opt for a retributive justice. While the former hopes to "heal" the community there is a sense in which the guilty go free; whereas the latter punsih the guilty many see this as causing further divisions. Is there any other option for justly dealing with such transition?
Peter S. Fosl
October 26, 2007
(changed October 26, 2007)
Permalink
For myself, I see no third option and I think the trade-off between retribution and restoration to be a difficult one. It is likelly that both forms of justice should play a role in transitional situations. But it's also likely that the contingent features of a particular situation--the di... Read more
Do you believe that the future of feminism lies in downplaying our differences instead of "celebrating" and emphasizing them? It seems to me that bar physical differences, male and female gender roles are largely social constructs, and the marginalization of women is as much due to their own awareness of their "difference" compared with men. A major example of this is the fact that we have a Minister for Women in this country. Is that not basically admitting that to be female is to deviate from a normative male standard, and that issues concerning therefore requires special attention? That is tantamount to admitting, accepting or condoning the fact that female interest is not present in all the affairs dealt with by other ministers (Finance, Health, Education), and it seems a contradiction in terms. It's more than positive discrimination - it's willful marginalization. On the part of women, obviously. It seems by seeking to put ourselves on an equal level with men we have overshot and are now seeking to separate ourselves even more. Shouldn't the aim be to participate equally in all facets of life? I accept that there are still problems concerning gender equality in Britain, such as the glass ceiling, but I believe that has more to do with women wanting to have children as well as have a career, in which case they would be the first to admit that they cannot compete for the top jobs. Women now ave the possibility to value their careers over their families and can choose not to have children at all. Basically my question is why feminists seem to want to actively take men's superiority from them instead of accepting that we are essentially the same and should co-exist as such?
Louise Antony
November 8, 2007
(changed November 8, 2007)
Permalink
I have a slightly different reaction to your question that Prof. Fosl does. The version of feminism that I subscribe to says that sexism consists in the existence of gender roles -- that is, in the social construction of categories of persons founded on differences in reproductive physiolo... Read more
What is it that separates something that looks bad from something that looks good? What is it that determines whether it's ugly or beautiful?
Peter S. Fosl
October 26, 2007
(changed October 26, 2007)
Permalink
There seems to be no single property or feature of things that makes them look good or bad. Different things will look good or bad for different reasons in different contexts. A sculpture might look good for one reason and a painting for another. A sculpture might look good in the contex... Read more
How much math should I know in order to delve really deeply into philosophy of mathematics? Must philosophers of mathematics be mathematicians, as well?
Daniel J. Velleman
October 26, 2007
(changed October 26, 2007)
Permalink
Philosophers of mathematics don't have to be mathematicians, but it would be helpful to know a fair amount of math. Here are some more specific suggestions:1. You need to study enough math to appreciate the role of proofs in mathematics. Usually students don't see this until they ge... Read more