Recent Responses
I have what most people would call a generally 'good' life (I think). I am doing well at university, I have good future prospects, I am young and relatively healthy, I have good friends, I have a close and supportive family, I spend time helping others through volunteer work, I am in a hassle-free and good relationship, and I have no financial problems. Recently however I have begun to feel that my life is more or less a waste of time. Although I have felt this in the past, I got rid of the feeling by doing more (studying more, socialising more, etc) and it went away for a bit. Still, I can't help feeling that unless I do something 'great', there is no point in my being alive. On the other hand maybe I should just enjoy every day as it comes, and ignore the fact that my life is ticking away in a pleasant but largely unremarkable fashion. Are people's lives only justified if they do something that they and everyone else thinks is extraordinary? Or is it okay just to be mediocre and content? Is it selfish to even wonder this, and should I just count my blessings?
Thomas Pogge
January 1, 2006
(changed January 1, 2006)
Permalink
It's probably okay just to be mediocre and content, but what you write suggests you don't really have the option, at this stage, of being content with mediocrity. Should you try to be so content? Is it selfish not to be? Hardly.
The question then is whether you have a good alternative to medio... Read more
Contemporary philosophers often talk of "thick" or "thin" terms. I get the general idea of what "thick" and "thin" mean in a philosophical context, but is there a precise or technical definition of their use?
Thomas Pogge
January 1, 2006
(changed January 1, 2006)
Permalink
"Thick" and "thin" are generally applied to predicates such as "is a person", "is wrong", and "harms". (The first of these can be applied to living organisms, the second to pieces of conduct, and the third -- a two-place predicate -- to ordered pairs of agents.)
Often, such predicates are used... Read more
Does there exist an approach to ethics which doesn't depend upon or emphasize obligation and/or duty?
Thomas Pogge
January 1, 2006
(changed January 1, 2006)
Permalink
Look at some of the ancients (Homer, Plato, Aristotle) for the idea that ethics is all about becoming and being the best that you can be, leading the best possible life. They had different ideas of what this was, emphasizing different excellences. But they shared the idea that such nobility is... Read more
Are the psycho-sexual aspects of ourselves fixated from a relatively early age, so that "turn ons" are conditioned if not unalterably then in some way that fixes in ourselves certain ideas about what it is for something to be sexual in nature? Should considerations about this act as impetus to revise any aspects of the media and popular culture, including of course, pornography, which is one of the largest domains of media-culture despite being confined to less blatant forms of presentation (than, say, advertisments for "Big Macs")? Finally, I have the idea that cyber-porn (and to a lesser extent all cyber-sex) is covertly homo-erotic when men use it to get off on "straight" screen sex. This isn't entirely true, sex is sex and breasts are breasts, but the fact that a machine which could be (not unfairly) called a "boys toy" is being used as the platform for a mathematically constructed system of media exchange (viz. the world wide web) that was developed primarily by men. Crucially, the sex scenes themselves are heavily male edited, and in many of them there is little left of female sensuality (and, perhaps not coincidentally, a hugely disproportionate screenage of male/female genitilia as compares to sex in the flesh). Doesn't that amount to "getting off on" a male conception of sexuality (or one form of it), and if so, can that count as homoerotic? [Feel free to respond to all or just some of these questions]
Alan Soble
December 31, 2005
(changed December 31, 2005)
Permalink
(1) Are the psycho-sexual aspects of ourselves fixated from a relatively early age, so that "turn ons" [what we find sexually arousing] are conditioned if not unalterably then in some way that fixes in ourselves certain ideas about what it is for something to be sexual [to be sexual or to be... Read more
I claim to be a pacifist (or: like the idea of it and have not yet had the chance to express it), and honestly do not care for violence or confrontation. I have also been thinking of moments where violence would provide me with a safe route out of a situation: Let's say I am walking the streets with my girlfriend, everything is fine and the sun is just setting. All of a sudden a crook runs up and tries to rob me and my girlfriend. Now, being that I claim pacifism, I would think not to take any physical action towards the crook, but being a good boyfriend I would think to protect my girlfriend with my fists if need be. What would be my options to a situation like this? Would fighting the crook off with violence make me a hypocrite? Would not fighting off the crook make me a bad person/boyfriend for not protecting my girlfriend? I understand that what Mohandas Gandhi did throughout his life would make many consider him a true pacifist, but if he were to be in this type of position and he just sat there, would he be concidered a bad person or a man of his word?
Peter S. Fosl
December 31, 2005
(changed December 31, 2005)
Permalink
An interesting question on a number of levels. In answering the question much depends upon how one defines "pacifism," "good," "bad," etc. So, if we were to have an extended conversation about the question I'd explore with you some definitions. I also think we should look at a few of t... Read more
If every life results in death, then what is the meaning of life?
Peter S. Fosl
December 30, 2005
(changed December 30, 2005)
Permalink
This is a compelling question. I remember encountering it in a powerful way reading Albert Camus’s essay, “Absurd Reasoning.” Recently, a student of mine broached it during a discussion we were having about the condition the universe seems to be heading towards. It seems, I’m told, that... Read more
If Cheese is made of bacteria culture, and bacteria is alive, is it wrong to eat cheese and yogurt? Or plants and anything else that is alive? If so, why do we have laws to protect people, animals, and other multi-organism beings, but not bacteria, which plays just as inportant, or even a more important role, than say a cat?
Peter S. Fosl
December 30, 2005
(changed December 30, 2005)
Permalink
What role? Not the role of my companion. What makes a role "important"? Note that much of the "role" bacteria plays is that of food for other organisms. Like that of Titus Andronicus, some important roles end in suffering and death.So, I don't think the concept of "important role" will e... Read more
I am having trouble with the classic problem of free choice vs. determinism specifically in the sphere of human responsibility. While I often recognise that there are external factors that can and do bring people to act in various ways, I also find myself impatient with those who are unwilling to admit to a certain degree of responsibility. My problem seems to be that I recognise both not just as possible, but true simultaneously. Philosophically speaking, can this be so?
Peter Lipton
December 30, 2005
(changed December 30, 2005)
Permalink
At the most general level, it is difficult to see how free will is even logically possible, whether determinism is true or not. For if determinism is true, then everything we do follows from the laws of nature plus the state of the universe before we were born; and if determinism is not t... Read more
Rape is unwanted sex. Why playing in sexy films or sexy scenes as a professional obligation (i.e., being obliged to have sex with another actor/actress who is NOT necessarily beloved already) is not considered as rape? I mean, being raped by the director or producer, not by the other actor/actress who is him/herself the other victim of this rape? And why this job is considered different from prostitution? What's the position of Human Rights in these regards?
Alan Soble
December 30, 2005
(changed December 30, 2005)
Permalink
Nicholas is right that there are good reasons to think that rape should not be defined as "unwanted" sex. Although Stephen Schulhofer titled his book on rape Unwanted Sex, he makes it clear that rape, on his view, is to be understood as sex that is not consensual. There has been, of course,... Read more
I have been ill since 1993 so much so that I now have 20 documented medical disorders, including depression, psychosis and schizophrenia. In the past 13 months I almost died twice of acute renal failure and digestive system poisoning. I was hospitalised five times during this period. I am now taking 26 tablets per day plus weekly hormone injection. I am in severe pain 24 hours per day. Since I cannot eat what I want to eat, cannot do what I want to do and cannot go where I want to go, is euthanasia justified for my specific case?
Louise Antony
December 29, 2005
(changed December 29, 2005)
Permalink
Your condition sounds truly terrible. You have my sympathy.
It would be deeply unethical for me or anyone on this panel to try to discuss your particular situation in a forum like this. I would hope that you have a trusted friend or relative with whom you could discuss the matter, someo... Read more