Recent Responses
I would like to know if duty implies value. If I have the duty to take care of my daughter, does that imply that it is better that I take care of her than that I don't? If two people promise each other to meet that evening, is it then better (at least, according to their promises) that they meet? If I have the duty to join my country's army, is it better that I do than that I don't? Thank you.
Charles Taliaferro
February 22, 2015
(changed February 22, 2015)
Permalink
Great questions. Many philosophers recognize that we have multiple duties which sometimes conflict. And they also recognize different degrees of complexity that come with duties. So, in a parent-daughter relationship, it is widely acknowledged that a parent does have a duty to tak... Read more
I am a scientist with very strong desire for personal growth.I acknowledge the undeniable practical values of science in making better world. However, I am wondering how being a scientist would contribute to my own growth and self-actualization.(regardless of financial or social gain of being a scientist). Also is it worthy to put my life on practicing science which mostly involve in a very narrow research area. I mean if putting so much time and energy on such tiny bit of knowledge is really good and in accordance with my ultimate goal of being self-actualized?
Allen Stairs
February 20, 2015
(changed February 20, 2015)
Permalink
I think the best place to start is by asking yourself what "self-actualization" is supposed to be and why it's so important. The phrase "self-actualized" has a sort of aura about it, but I'm not sure it's a helpful one for thinking about how we should live. One of my problems with the phra... Read more
Is rape always immoral? Could it be justified under jurisprudence as punishment for a crime or under environmental ethics to save the human race in the event of a near human extinction?
Allen Stairs
February 20, 2015
(changed February 20, 2015)
Permalink
Someone might say that punishment should fit the crime and therefore that raping rapists is a just punishment. Someone might also say that torturing torturers is a just punishment. My reaction is that examples like this show the unacceptability of a strict "eye for an eye" notion of justic... Read more
If every thing has being then how can non-being, as a concept, not have being? Wouldn't it have being by virtue of its distinction from being? I.e. in being 'non-being'- it 'is' that which is 'not being' (the conceptual complement of being) and as it 'is' non-being - distinct from being, it is 'being' no? And so if this is the case, and being is thus a characteristic of all things - then what of being itself?
Stephen Maitzen
February 19, 2015
(changed February 19, 2015)
Permalink
...how can non-being, as a concept, not have being?
I see no reason why it can't. I see no reason to think that the concept of non-being (or non-existence, or related concepts) fails to exist. Not every concept must instantiate itself. Indeed, typically concepts don't instantiate themse... Read more
Do philosophers always embrace rationalism? Why not irrationalism? What's so bad about my voting for a political candidate based on how attractive his wife is?
Miriam Solomon
February 19, 2015
(changed February 19, 2015)
Permalink
Philosophers are generally speaking fans of reason and rationality, but there are exceptions, e.g. David Hume, who wrote that reason is a "slave to the passions." There is also, often, unclarity about what the reasonable or rational thing to do is. In response to your final question: v... Read more
Is a society that criminalizes incitement to violence and libel really a free society despite all other forms of speech being legal?
Allen Stairs
February 13, 2015
(changed February 13, 2015)
Permalink
Is a society that criminalizes murder a free society?Depends on what you mean. If a free society is one in which nothing is forbidden, then if anything is criminalized, the society isn't free. But if that's what's meant by "free society," then no sane person would want to live in one. This... Read more
People who want to adopt children typically must demonstrate that they would be good parents (they must be financially stable, reasonably healthy, law-abiding, and so on). This is often a very difficult process, as prospective parents are placed under intense scrutiny; and many couples who would likely make fine parents are denied. What reason is there to regulate adoption in this way that would not apply to parenthood in general? I think most of us agree that it is a good thing that not just anyone can adopt. But why should having one's own biological children by any different? I am normally repulsed by the claim that only certain people should be allowed to breed. However, I don't see what would justify applying such demanding standards to adoptive parents but not biological ones.
Peter S. Fosl
February 13, 2015
(changed February 13, 2015)
Permalink
There are a number of reasons for the asymmetry for the difference in the way biological and adoptive parents are treated. The first is privacy. The second is liberty. The decision to reproduce and the process of reproduction are among the most personal, intimate, and emotionally profound... Read more
An acquaintance believes that mandatory vaccination laws are "immoral." Her basic argument, as best I understand it, is that even if vaccines benefit almost everyone, there IS a risk -- however small -- that someone may be injured or even killed by a vaccine. Therefore, to force someone to get a shot that might possibly be hurtful is immoral. Somehow she equates mandatory vaccination to slavery -- something being imposed on people against their will. I don't think mandatory vaccination laws are immoral in the least. Her argument seems pretty wrong to me. Is it?
Stephen Maitzen
February 12, 2015
(changed February 12, 2015)
Permalink
If your acquaintance argues that mandatory vaccination is immoral because it exposes people, against their will, to the risk of injury or death, you might ask her if she thinks a mandatory seat belt law is also immoral, because on rare occasions seat belts cause injury or even death.
S... Read more
Suppose I have never played a game of chess. If I now make the claim that I've won all the games of chess I've ever played, is that claim true, false, or undefined? A group of friends had an argument over this, and I figured that philosophers are deeply logical thinkers that can give us the answer and also to get a proper understanding of why the answer is what it is.
Stephen Maitzen
February 12, 2015
(changed February 12, 2015)
Permalink
It would, of course, be equally true that you've lost every game of chess you've ever played. Bad news to go with the good.
Log in to post comments
If we as professional and amateur philosophers are to accept psychology as a science (see question 5362 answered by Charles Taliaferro), then what does that make psychiatry? Even if a person fits all the criteria for having a mental disorder according to principles of psychology yet he refuses treatment, why should medical or pseudo-medical psychiatrists intervene so long as that individual decides to refuse to concur with the diagnoses or more importantly refuses to to acknowledge the treatment while accepting the diagnoses? Isn't psychiatry then just a mostly futile exercise in normative ethics to the whim of the patient?
Jonathan Westphal
February 12, 2015
(changed February 12, 2015)
Permalink
I don't think much depends here on whether psychology or psychiatry is a science. What matters is whether they are doing good or not for patients. Supposing we think they are, a commonsense criterion seems to be that even if patients do not accept the diagnosis or the treatment, thing... Read more