Recent Responses
Just what is exploitation? Is it not unequal agreements between two parties in which one has a higher status than the other in which the lower of the parties agrees to a social or legal contract merely for the possibility of future equality or future hypothetical greater status? Is not the unequal ability of one person to capitalize on another the very definition of exploitation and why is it so bad? In other words, does social Darwinism dictate our lives whether we like it or know it or not?
Oliver Leaman
January 15, 2015
(changed January 15, 2015)
Permalink
I am sure you are right that the strong tend to prevail over the weak, if that is what you mean by social Darwinism.But that does not mean it is justified. If parties need to come to an agreement then they should freely choose what is in that agreement, and any imbalance of power is likely... Read more
If a State A attacks another State B's military apparatus knowing full well that there will be civilian collateral damage, then why is it that even if State B retaliates by intentionally targeting civilians, it's terrorism?
Jonathan Westphal
January 8, 2015
(changed January 8, 2015)
Permalink
Andrew is obviously right, but what he is proposing is actually a utilitarian basis for double effect.
Log in to post comments
If a State A attacks another State B's military apparatus knowing full well that there will be civilian collateral damage, then why is it that even if State B retaliates by intentionally targeting civilians, it's terrorism?
Jonathan Westphal
January 8, 2015
(changed January 8, 2015)
Permalink
Andrew is obviously right, but what he is proposing is actually a utilitarian basis for double effect.
Log in to post comments
How can you be confident that you're an open-minded or free thinker? Doesn't it seem likely that even the most prejudiced, dogmatic individuals view themselves as free thinkers (or, at any rate, appropriately responsive to evidence) with respect to their own views?
Andrew Pessin
January 8, 2015
(changed January 8, 2015)
Permalink
Good question. Could use some precision in the terms, i.e. what exactly counts as being "open-minded" or "free thinking"? some of these terms might have very specific meaning in certain contexts, but not clear what meaning you're assigning to them here. Also the heart of your second sentence/... Read more
As an academic philosopher what do you think are your biggest responsibilities outside of teaching and research in terms of to the world and to the field in general? Why do you feel you even have those responsibilities at all?
Charles Taliaferro
January 8, 2015
(changed January 8, 2015)
Permalink
Good questions! For myself and those in a similar position as a professor in the liberal arts each of the faculty is understood (and this is part of our job description) to have obligations in terms of teaching (or, putting this slightly differently, the obligation to be a professor in... Read more
There will be an election in my country in the next few months and when I look at all the platforms of the parties that are running, I despise all of them. Yes, there may be a few parties which may have one or two stand alone positions I like, but everything else I find unappealing. Is the solution then to just not vote at all or should individuals do something active since voting is a very passive activity that only happens several years apart? I think low voter turnout in a democracy is actually a GOOD thing (since parties and electoral boards are always encouraging people to do the opposite, making politics into a competitive spectator sport) as it may lead to new parties and movements to expand the number of options.
Andrew Pessin
January 8, 2015
(changed January 8, 2015)
Permalink
good, difficult question. one of many possible strategies would be to choose the party that you think, overall, to be the least bad, or is likely to the least ill. Of course if you generally despise all the options then it may be very difficult to determine which party fits that description,... Read more
If a State A attacks another State B's military apparatus knowing full well that there will be civilian collateral damage, then why is it that even if State B retaliates by intentionally targeting civilians, it's terrorism?
Jonathan Westphal
January 8, 2015
(changed January 8, 2015)
Permalink
Andrew is obviously right, but what he is proposing is actually a utilitarian basis for double effect.
Log in to post comments
Can you choice what to belive in?
Allen Stairs
January 8, 2015
(changed January 8, 2015)
Permalink
A good question. Usually we can't just choose what to believe. For example, I can't decide to believe that there's an elephant in the room with me, no matter how hard I try. That's likely because we're wired in a way that won't usually let us override the evidence of our senses. But the words... Read more
If it is illegal for a rape victim to kill the rapist after the fact, then why should it be legal for the rape victim to kill a baby that is the product of the rape? It seems to me that abortion is "vigilante justice" in a sense. This is all assuming, of course, that the unborn child is considered a living, human being. If it isn't, then why is an unborn child not then considered "evidence" to be used by a third party? I do not think an unborn child should be considered anything in between a "living human" and an "object," but please take this distinction into consideration.
Allen Stairs
January 7, 2015
(changed January 7, 2015)
Permalink
My co-panelist has drawn some genuine distinctions, but I'd expect many people to find his response unconvincing overall. One obvious reason: suppose I have a five-year-old child who poses a very substantial burden to me. Perhaps the child has a physical disability that makes extensive demands... Read more
Do you agree that hedonism (or some related ethical egoism) is the best life philosophy in this turbulent world? Eighty years is the average timespan of a human life on Earth in which dependency on parents during youth and dependency on others in feeble old age take almost half that time. Pain or sickness, dealing with problems of urban living, climbing the corporate ladder, and menial tasks take almost half of the rest. So what is life for but for enjoyment or pleasure? It is for this reason that I and many other people find the well-dressed gentlemanly self absorbed playboy to be much more worthy of admiration than the monk who tries to save starving children in a far away land that ordinary people would not want to set foot on. We are the helpless straw dogs of the natural forces that made us, that gave us our unchosen ancestry and inalienable character. We ought to embrace and accept this fate without complaint, and not be fooled by all the artificially constructed nonsense of Gods, religious dogma, inherent virtue, universal love, or charity; in other words, man should only be concerned for himself and maybe close friends or family only and resist fighting or interfering in the affairs of others because that would only be a distraction and not serve his internal nature. Self-expression and finding contentment are themselves spiritual goods. One ought not strive for life beyond one’s natural ability (a beggar should not strive to become a CEO), nor should one unnecessarily shorten one’s life by living recklessly (e.g. Clark Gable).
Allen Stairs
January 2, 2015
(changed January 2, 2015)
Permalink
I've been trying to find the argument here. It seems to be "Life can really suck. Therefore you should look out for Number One." Am I missing anything?I think that's called a non sequitur. Now it's true that self-expression and contentment are goods. (Not sure what the word "spiritual" adds he... Read more