Archive for June, 2006

A Bullet for hard-line Pro-Lifers

Tuesday, June 27th, 2006

A hard-line pro-lifer is someone who thinks that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception and that abortion is seriously morally wrong in the vast majority of cases. There’s a bullet to bite in contemporary versions of this view. Consider the following claims:
1) the fetus is a morally considerable person from the moment of conception
2) it is impossible to do anything morally wrong while in the womb
3) it is morally impermissible to kill innocent people simply to benefit oneself
4) it is morally permissible for a woman to abort in cases where the pregnancy threatens her life

1-4 form an inconsitent set (more…)

Posted in Applied Ethics | 100 Comments »

Regulating Moral Wrongs

Tuesday, June 27th, 2006

I heard something interesting on Morning Edition today. Alan Dershowitz (Harvard Law Professor) asserted the following claims (the following is a paraphrase):

1. Torture is categorically a moral wrong.
2. There should be laws governing the use of torture.

Initially, I thought the two incoherent (And I am still not certain one can consistently hold these two views). I want to say that if some act is categorically a moral wrong, then there are no cases where it can be permitted. A law regulating some act gives conditions when an act can be permitted. Therefore, there is no law that can regulate a categorical moral wrong (more…)

Posted in Ethical Theory, Social/Political | 84 Comments »

What is a state?

Monday, June 19th, 2006

A few of us were discussing what make up the necessary and sufficient conditions of a state. One common line is that (A) is necessary and sufficient:

(A): X has a monopoly of force over a codified geographical region.

It is not perfectly clear what it means to have a ‘monopoly of force over’ something or what significance a codified geographical region plays. Does a ‘monopoly of force’ simply mean that the state has a set of enforceable rules governing the use of force by its citizens? This might be too weak though. Imagine, then, a ’state’ that only enforces rules regarding driving too fast on the highway and by rule leaves the use of all other force up to the citizens. This doesn’t seem (to me) to be a state, though I might be mistaken. What else might a ‘monopoly of force’ mean?
(more…)

Posted in Social/Political | 224 Comments »

Steroid use is wrong because…

Friday, June 9th, 2006

Barry Bonds’ recent Babe Ruth-topping home run prompted a slew of highlights on sports television. In one highlight, people in the stands were holding a banner that read “Ruth did it on hot dogs and beer,” referring to Bonds’ alleged steroid use.(see pic) If we add to this story the recent acquittal of Lance Armstrong on doping charges, and the congressional hearings on steroids in baseball, it is obvious that many Americans strongly disapprove of the use of performance-enhancing drugs. Now the baseball steroids investigation smells blood (or testosterone) in the Show-Me state. A Kansas City based strength/conditioning coach is apparently named on the infamous Grimsley Affidavit. (info)
I’m wondering, where, specifically, is the moral failure in athletic steroid use? (more…)

Posted in Applied Ethics | 182 Comments »

Necessity Claims

Tuesday, June 6th, 2006

I would like to advance the following argument for the c onclusion that modal skepticism is true. I have talked with quite a few of you about the argument but I wanted to post on the idea.

I take it that most of us believe things like the following - it is necessarily true that the logical law of non-contradiction holds. For instance, it is just necessarily true that it is not possible for X to both exist and not exist at the same time. Further, I take a modal skeptic to be one who denies that the above claim is necessarily true. I might be using terminology in a non-standard way (hopefully not) but I just wanted to get this clear early.

Is there any good argument for modal skepticism. (more…)

Posted in Metaphysics, Philosophy of Religion | 73 Comments »