Recent Responses
Do philosophers have an aesthetic appreciation or their work? Do they find certain philosophical works or arguments, not just interesting, but beautiful (as GH Hardy or Einstein did)?
Thomas Pogge
October 17, 2007
(changed October 17, 2007)
Permalink
Yes; and I would distinguish two kinds of such aesthetic appreciation. Some philosophers are very good writers, and it is simply wonderful to read them -- some of my favorites are Plato, Hobbes, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, and Bernard Williams. And in some cases the problem posed or argument pr... Read more
Have professional philosophers come up with a strong response to Peter Singer's argument in "Famine, Affluence and Morality"? I take it that most find Singer's demands excessive, yet they seem irresistibly well-reasoned to me, and I've never been able to think my way around them.
Thomas Pogge
October 17, 2007
(changed October 17, 2007)
Permalink
There are various papers addressing Singer's argument directly, and they are easy to find. More interesting, perhaps, are more indirect responses that downplay the universalistic claims of morality in favor of special moral ties to friends and associates as well as non-moral commitments. The... Read more
Can the "real world" provide evidence that mathematical knowledge is legitimate? I think its many peoples' intuition that the successful application of math to science and engineering (e.g., that we can use math to build bridges) shows that math is true.
Allen Stairs
October 16, 2007
(changed October 16, 2007)
Permalink
The question is whether what we find in the physical world could tell us whether math is true. Let's consider two sorts of cases. One is what we might call mathematical laws -- 1+1=2 is a particularly simple example. An algebraic law like x2 - y2 = (x+y)(x-y) is another. The second sort of c... Read more
If a woman does not want to support a child, she can choose to have an abortion. Of course, the would-be father ultimately has no say in this decision (he cannot force or prevent an abortion). Presumably, the asymmetry here relates to the fact that pregnancy and childbirth burden the mother to an infinitely greater extent than the father. What I don't understand, though, is why fathers may be forced to support (monetarily) children which they didn't want. If a woman decides to have a child in spite of her partner's disagreement, shouldn't she also assume full responsibility for that child? It seems as though the man has no say at all here. If the man wants the child, the woman may nevertheless abort; if he doesn't want the child (but she does), he nevertheless must support it.
Jyl Gentzler
October 13, 2007
(changed October 13, 2007)
Permalink
When a human child is brought into existence, whose moral responsibility is it to see that this child’s very significant needs are met? In most human societies, this responsibility has been given to its parents. It was due to the parents’ actions that this child came into existence in the fi... Read more
If there is an all-knowing God who knows the future, then he knows I'm going to sneeze in 10 seconds. But if I do something to control my sneeze, then I have just changed the future. Does this mean there is not an all-knowing God who knows the future, because we have control over our future. This would suggest multiple futures and abolish the theory of God. Or is there some way for there to be multiple futures and an all-knowing God?
Alexander George
October 13, 2007
(changed October 13, 2007)
Permalink
See also Question 997.
Log in to post comments
Concerning our moral obligations to other people, what is the distinction between killing and letting die? For example, if I'm at the beach and there's a child playing in the water, I think I can safely say that everyone would agree that it would be wrong for me to go in to the water and drown the child. But say I see the child drowning, and there's no one else around, and I could easily jump in and save him without risking my own life, would it be wrong for me to stand there and do nothing as he drowns? I'm not so sure what one's moral obligation is in this case. Personally, I would feel awful about letting the child drown and would certainly try to save him, but maybe not everyone would, and I'm hesitant so say they've done something wrong by doing nothing. In other words I don't know if I would support a law punishing such behavior.
Jyl Gentzler
October 13, 2007
(changed October 13, 2007)
Permalink
I would like to distinguish two questions: (1) In any given case, is the mere difference between killing and letting die morally significant? and (2) From the point of view of public policy, should we draw a distinction between killing and letting die?
I am convinced by the arguments that Ja... Read more
My understanding of Plato's dialogues is that, though Plato wrote them, the characters in them were real people. What I've never been clear on is whether the arguments Plato attributes to these individuals were actually their own arguments, or whether it's all just a rhetorical foil, and anything said in dialogues is actually something Plato came up with. E.g., if I want to cite Callicles' argument that might makes right, should I attribute the idea to Callicles, or to Plato?
Jyl Gentzler
October 13, 2007
(changed October 13, 2007)
Permalink
For an exhaustive study of what we know on independent grounds about the characters who appear in Plato's dialogues, I would recommend Debra Nails' The People of Plato. In many cases, we have independent evidence that the positions that are held by the characters in Plato's dialogues corresp... Read more
If there is an all-knowing God who knows the future, then he knows I'm going to sneeze in 10 seconds. But if I do something to control my sneeze, then I have just changed the future. Does this mean there is not an all-knowing God who knows the future, because we have control over our future. This would suggest multiple futures and abolish the theory of God. Or is there some way for there to be multiple futures and an all-knowing God?
Alexander George
October 13, 2007
(changed October 13, 2007)
Permalink
See also Question 997.
Log in to post comments
What exactly is the nature, scope, and origin of "methodological naturalism"? What are the most authoritative sources to learn about the origin and nature of methodological naturalism as it is employed in the sciences? I would appreciate any reply to this question. Thanks!
Allen Stairs
October 11, 2007
(changed October 11, 2007)
Permalink
On the one hand... There's some controversy here, but a nice, readable paper by Bradley Monton argues that methodological naturalism neither is nor should be a presupposition of science. Monton provides further references to the literature. To see the paper, click here.
I think Monton makes... Read more
Why does it seem that everything that I read in philosophy always uses "she" or "her" instead of "his" or "he"?
Jean Kazez
April 28, 2010
(changed April 28, 2010)
Permalink
Hurray for singular "they". Apparently good writers have long used it--
This is not a new problem, or a new solution. 'A person can't helptheir birth', wrote Thackeray in Vanity Fair (1848), and evenShakespeare produced the line 'Every one to rest themselves betake' (inLucrece), which pedants wou... Read more