Saturday, September 06, 2003
I've been meaning to scribble down some notes for stuff that came up at CTY this summer. Elaboration is for later. Anyhow, figured I should include some philosophy-ish content on a blog bearing a philosophy-ish name.
1. Answering "The Singer Solution to World Poverty" et al. on Peter Singer's terms. The responses I've read to Singer's thought experiments (haven't read many) concerning world poverty do not really address the datum of the thought experiment itself. Bob's situation is presented as a one time deal, whereas our ability to give to charity is not - this seems like a candidate for a morally relevant distinction between Bob's situation and our own. At the very least, it can change our intuitions about the case. Credit Jeremy.
Assuming an imperfect duty to help others, there are some interesting consequences that result from isolating a decision in a series of relevantly similar decisions: (imagine God smites people unless they say a prayer once per calendar day - doesn't matter when - just have to do it once per calendar day. Now try to figure out whether it is prudent for you to pray at 2:00pm if you haven't prayed yet, ceteris paribus. 2:01? 2:02?...)
2. Seabiscuit in the Alaskan wilderness. Don't quite remember what this is about - but it has something to do with Aristotle, excellence and flourishing being independent of Pimlico. Just look at that Seabiscuit run!
3. My TA claimed that it was dissonant (inconsistent?) to feel guilt over an action that one takes to be justified. This seems to me to be pretty clearly wrong, but might lead to something about rationality and emotions.
4. Some stuff on Nagel's "The Absurd", which is hinted at below. The crazy Scythians come up, too.
¶ 12:48 AM
1. Answering "The Singer Solution to World Poverty" et al. on Peter Singer's terms. The responses I've read to Singer's thought experiments (haven't read many) concerning world poverty do not really address the datum of the thought experiment itself. Bob's situation is presented as a one time deal, whereas our ability to give to charity is not - this seems like a candidate for a morally relevant distinction between Bob's situation and our own. At the very least, it can change our intuitions about the case. Credit Jeremy.
Assuming an imperfect duty to help others, there are some interesting consequences that result from isolating a decision in a series of relevantly similar decisions: (imagine God smites people unless they say a prayer once per calendar day - doesn't matter when - just have to do it once per calendar day. Now try to figure out whether it is prudent for you to pray at 2:00pm if you haven't prayed yet, ceteris paribus. 2:01? 2:02?...)
2. Seabiscuit in the Alaskan wilderness. Don't quite remember what this is about - but it has something to do with Aristotle, excellence and flourishing being independent of Pimlico. Just look at that Seabiscuit run!
3. My TA claimed that it was dissonant (inconsistent?) to feel guilt over an action that one takes to be justified. This seems to me to be pretty clearly wrong, but might lead to something about rationality and emotions.
4. Some stuff on Nagel's "The Absurd", which is hinted at below. The crazy Scythians come up, too.
¶ 12:48 AM
