Recent Responses
My concerns about the disproportionate civilian casualties in the Israeli-Gaza have fallen on deaf ears among my friends. "There's no moral equivalence between the two sides," they respond. "If Israel has to kill innocent civilians to get at Hamas attackers, sobeit." Their argument seems to be that Hamas is much more "evil" an entity than a self-defending Israel, but I am not certain that Israel did enough to mitigate those civilian casualties. That "moral equivalence" argument seems like a rhetorical hand-grenade that makes actual discussion impossible. Am I being soft-hearted or soft-headed when I question the morality of Israel's response to Hamas'attack? Please, if you can, point me toward sources who have addressed this question. Thanks so much. Scott F. W.
Oliver Leaman
September 25, 2014
(changed September 25, 2014)
Permalink
I know what you mean. There is the position that there are no circumstances at all in which one is entitled to harm the innocent, in which case both sides were wrong. Was one more wrong than the other, and if so would this sort of justify killing the innocent? If someone is hitching a r... Read more
Is it possible for two tautologies to not be logically equivalent?
Richard Heck
September 22, 2014
(changed September 22, 2014)
Permalink
The term "tautology" has no established technical usage. Indeed, most logicians would avoid it nowadays, at least in technical writing. But when the term is used informally, it usually means: sentence (or formula) that is valid in virtue of its sentential (as opposed to predicate, or mod... Read more
Is any society that uses money in some degree a capitalist society, even the ex-Soviet Union? I hear arguments everyday from others and the media that a free society must necessarily be a capitalist one but I think that is just an illusion because the government, business, and other institutions with power set out all the laws and norms for this unofficial ideology of capitalism to exist, not individuals. Most people in capitalist societies have no other choice but to spend their entire lives accumulating capital instead of doing more important things like being self-sufficient and reading philosophy. I live in a capitalist country that I don't want to be part of, so what should I do? I don't have enough time or power to change or overthrow my country's capitalist system and I don't want to leave to move to another country. Is the only solution to separate myself from society completely just like Thoreau did at Walden Pond and live off the land?
Charles Taliaferro
September 20, 2014
(changed September 20, 2014)
Permalink
Your questions and observations are fascinating. On the first matter about money and capitalism, the answer seems to be that the bare use of money in a society would not (by itself) make it capitalist, but when you add the qualifier "in some degree" I think one must admit that the... Read more
Is there any way to ultimately resolve, by reason or evidence, the conflict between moral relativism and moral realism? Reading about this issue makes me feel unsure about the real status of morality. Any suggestion would help.
Stephen Maitzen
September 19, 2014
(changed September 19, 2014)
Permalink
If by "ultimately resolve by reason or evidence" you mean "offer reasons or evidence sufficient to get everyone to accept one side of the debate," then an ultimate resolution of any issue seems very unlikely, just as a matter of social psychology. If, instead, you mean "discover reaso... Read more
Is it possible for two tautologies to not be logically equivalent?
Richard Heck
September 22, 2014
(changed September 22, 2014)
Permalink
The term "tautology" has no established technical usage. Indeed, most logicians would avoid it nowadays, at least in technical writing. But when the term is used informally, it usually means: sentence (or formula) that is valid in virtue of its sentential (as opposed to predicate, or mod... Read more
In the context of "The Problem of Evil" can you help point me to the literature on this sub-category? Lacking this I have dubbed this sub-problem the "God for a day paradox": “If I had only some of the powers of God, I would cure cancer” Am I therefore more merciful than God? Supposedly the most merciful possible Being… Therefore is God’s omni-benevolence (not even that much is needed) itself a contradiction? How can a lesser being even think of a more merciful action (take curing cancer down to a single child; even to just answering a prayer for such a child) than God Himself? It is almost certainly possible to write a computer simulation that would, discover the “cancer mercy” action / rule on its own given an appropriate set of rules guiding “advance being behavior” This outcome would probably be another notch in favor of the Bostrom's “The Universe is a Simulation” argument. Thanks in advance, --JCN
Eric Silverman
September 26, 2014
(changed September 26, 2014)
Permalink
Since you asked for literature on the topic of the problem of evil, let me offer you some sources:God, Freedom and Evil by Alvin Plantinga (focuses on a 'free-will answer' to why evil exists)Evil and the God of Love by John Hick (focuses on a 'moral development' answer to why evil exis... Read more
Is it possible for two tautologies to not be logically equivalent?
Richard Heck
September 22, 2014
(changed September 22, 2014)
Permalink
The term "tautology" has no established technical usage. Indeed, most logicians would avoid it nowadays, at least in technical writing. But when the term is used informally, it usually means: sentence (or formula) that is valid in virtue of its sentential (as opposed to predicate, or mod... Read more
Hi, If there are truly random events in the Universe like Quantum Mechancis seems to suggest then even if we had a computer that knew everything about the Universe at t1 then it would stil fail to preidct every event at t2. Then, why are there are not buildings collapsing randomly due to some atoms popping in and out of existence?
Miriam Solomon
September 19, 2014
(changed September 19, 2014)
Permalink
It is possible that a well constructed building could collapse. But the probability, from quantum mechanics, is exceedingly low. So low that you have never seen or heard about a well constructed building collapsing randomly. Perhaps it has, somewhere in the universe.... Read more
How is Nietzsche's Will to Power related to his notion of Eternal Recurrence? Wikipedia suggests a connection, but does not elaborate. thanks PS: I am not a student and this is not a homework assignment.
Nickolas Pappas
September 18, 2014
(changed September 18, 2014)
Permalink
For a lot of people who study Nietzsche it’s not clear that a connection exists. Nietzsche himself considered these his two most important contributions to philosophy, although I’m not aware of any explicit attempt on his part to unite them. And you have to bear in mind that even th... Read more
Is it possible for two tautologies to not be logically equivalent?
Richard Heck
September 22, 2014
(changed September 22, 2014)
Permalink
The term "tautology" has no established technical usage. Indeed, most logicians would avoid it nowadays, at least in technical writing. But when the term is used informally, it usually means: sentence (or formula) that is valid in virtue of its sentential (as opposed to predicate, or mod... Read more