tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914031138285965395.comments2023-10-24T03:33:39.613-05:00Bethel Philosophy BlogUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger113125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914031138285965395.post-89121837339682760252019-01-19T20:52:42.101-06:002019-01-19T20:52:42.101-06:00I would take issue with the "50%" figure...I would take issue with the "50%" figure regarding the incidence of spontaneous abortions. See my post on "<a href="https://rockingwithhawking.blogspot.com/2017/04/miscarriages.html" rel="nofollow">Miscarriages</a>". It looks like it's significantly less.rockingwithhawkingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914031138285965395.post-77893674837291970852014-12-17T02:47:12.948-06:002014-12-17T02:47:12.948-06:00This raises the question of child education in gen...This raises the question of child education in general: what should we teach our children? Take a common topic that has some parallels with Santa: what should we teach our children about God? David Johnson thinks Santa and God share some characteristics, although he doesn't mention which ones. Some atheists argue that we shouldn't believe that God exists for the same reasons we don't John Granditshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06256359813487913629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914031138285965395.post-12327135843863390292014-12-08T02:48:47.727-06:002014-12-08T02:48:47.727-06:00Ray and Scott - You both contributed so much I'...Ray and Scott - You both contributed so much I'm not up to the task of addressing everything you said. One problem that you both mentioned was the feasibility problem. That argument is something like the following: if we either cannot, in principle, prevent spontaneous abortions or if we are severely limited in doing so, we need not accept the counterintuitive conclusion that we should be John Granditshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06256359813487913629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914031138285965395.post-21863344977489279422014-12-08T02:39:04.009-06:002014-12-08T02:39:04.009-06:00Thanks everyone for your responses. Thanks Ray for...Thanks everyone for your responses. Thanks Ray for responding on my behalf. Sorry it has taken so long to respond. I probably won't respond to all of your concerns, either because of a lack of time or skill on my part or because your arguments are irrefutable (likely), but maybe I can address a few of them. <br /><br />Some clarification:<br /><br />There are two ways that I think this John Granditshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06256359813487913629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914031138285965395.post-83598107969523520802014-12-03T17:05:14.106-06:002014-12-03T17:05:14.106-06:00Oops...yes, I did mean to say "inside" r...Oops...yes, I did mean to say "inside" rather than "outside". Thanks.Wheelzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10451673940827550240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914031138285965395.post-58416731191271254242014-12-03T13:44:08.185-06:002014-12-03T13:44:08.185-06:00Thanks for the response. Your point about all par...Thanks for the response. Your point about all parents using fertility treatments designed to promote implantation really got me thinking! I guess I'd offer four responses. <br /><br />1. The success rate of IVF typically hovers around 40%, even with the use of additional drugs that promote implantation. The reason SOME pro-lifers have opposed IVF is that this additional success rate isn&#Wheelzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10451673940827550240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914031138285965395.post-87113110058843518022014-12-03T11:15:23.593-06:002014-12-03T11:15:23.593-06:00Thanks, Michael. And Scott, I agree. (Did you me...Thanks, Michael. And Scott, I agree. (Did you mean in your first sentence to say "who lean toward God's being INSIDE of time"?) I'm just giving this as a reason for thinking God is outside time, in the absence of conclusive reasons for thinking God can't be outside time while (in some way) interacting with the world inside time. I also take some solace in the fact that Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17871449956946319684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914031138285965395.post-65447379066520865832014-12-03T10:45:50.274-06:002014-12-03T10:45:50.274-06:00Thanks to David and Scott. I think there’s much t...Thanks to David and Scott. I think there’s much to their responses and I’m not convinced by John’s argument, but I’ll try to put the best face on it. <br /><br />Scott says that we are in fact trying to prevent spontaneous abortions, and that’s true. (Though perhaps in the earliest stages of pregnancy we’re trying to prevent those for the sake of the parents, not the embryos.) But if Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17871449956946319684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914031138285965395.post-54235811947611344642014-12-02T17:36:56.701-06:002014-12-02T17:36:56.701-06:00I think those of us who lean toward God's bein...I think those of us who lean toward God's being outside of time could simply say that this whole discussion hinges on the one you didn't want to tackle: the nature of time itself. If the nature of time is such that it dictates that God couldn't be “outside” of it while still interacting with a world that exists “inside” it, then this whole discussion is moot. It wouldn't be a Wheelzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10451673940827550240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914031138285965395.post-76124769857103295752014-12-02T17:11:45.271-06:002014-12-02T17:11:45.271-06:00Thanks to John for the thought-provoking essay. I...Thanks to John for the thought-provoking essay. I'd like to offer four responses.<br /><br />1. Can't the defender of the “conservative claim” (CC) simply say, “so what?” Since the response to the conservative claim simply is that a lot of people who say they believe it don't actually believe it, this is not an actual attack on the CC; it's more like a sociological observation.Wheelzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10451673940827550240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914031138285965395.post-45167921857465849302014-12-01T21:42:34.690-06:002014-12-01T21:42:34.690-06:00I posted this on the Bethel Philosophy Facebook si...I posted this on the Bethel Philosophy Facebook site, where the blog was linked, but I will post it here too:<br />I appreciate John sharing his thoughts on this blog. Here are some thoughts in response: <br />This is actually a pretty common argument, which has been made, for instance, by Michael Sandel, Ronald Dworkins, and others, but I don't think it is very convincing. Consider the replyAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09188464251181456516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914031138285965395.post-13040907687386078832014-11-15T16:52:05.813-06:002014-11-15T16:52:05.813-06:00Really enjoyed the post, Dr. VanArragon. I agree w...Really enjoyed the post, Dr. VanArragon. I agree with your thesis: if God exists within time, then he's prisoner to it like us.<br /><br />The nostalgia argument is really fascinating. It seems like nostalgia pains us because we can't recreate the original experiences. It seems like the argument kind of hinges on whether God can recreate these experiences, which depends on your view of Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06553593621846104052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914031138285965395.post-41246700879646605992014-11-08T20:43:58.506-06:002014-11-08T20:43:58.506-06:00ANIMAL RIGHTS AND SELF-DEFENSE: A REPLY TO 'WH...ANIMAL RIGHTS AND SELF-DEFENSE: A REPLY TO 'WHEELZ'<br /><br />I'll now reply to a comment by Wheelz.<br /><br />There really are two distinct objections here, and each carries its own set of worries. The first objection is that if animals have rights, they have the right to defend themselves against unjust aggression; but many animals lack the ability to do so, and thus we ought to Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14620970884523516429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914031138285965395.post-83739911022140243922014-11-08T20:27:51.647-06:002014-11-08T20:27:51.647-06:00DOES CONTRACTUALISM IMPLY VEGANISM? A REPLY TO RAY...DOES CONTRACTUALISM IMPLY VEGANISM? A REPLY TO RAY VANARRAGON<br /><br /><br />I'll first reply to Ray's argument that contractualism doesn't imply veganism.<br /><br />It should first be noted that contractualism has very few obvious moral implications. In his two-volume work *On What Matters*, Derek Parfit argues that the most plausible version of contractualism implies something Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14620970884523516429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914031138285965395.post-44546871300483475282014-11-05T15:43:21.907-06:002014-11-05T15:43:21.907-06:00Just a note of clarification. I don't think Ra...Just a note of clarification. I don't think Rawls excludes non-human animals or severely permanently disabled humans from the original position because we can't imagine being them, but because he limits the OP to those who exemplify what he calls "the two moral powers," i.e. those who are "rational" and "reasonable," i.e. those who have a capacity to form, John Granditshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06256359813487913629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914031138285965395.post-87150394888518325782014-11-03T21:28:55.402-06:002014-11-03T21:28:55.402-06:00Thanks for the thoughtful response, Blake.
I type...Thanks for the thoughtful response, Blake.<br /><br />I typed out a long comment but don't think it submitted correctly. Rather than retype it, here are the two gists:<br /><br />It seems like harm is an essential concept in your essay and response, and you use the term in two senses: a specific sense related to pain and a sense related to general wellbeing. <br /><br />1) Why does the "Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06553593621846104052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914031138285965395.post-49632230929970118572014-11-02T08:48:03.634-06:002014-11-02T08:48:03.634-06:00I have a separate objection that I'd like to o...I have a separate objection that I'd like to offer. Under the argument, we're supposing all animals to be members of society, party to the social contract, and possessors of certain basic rights. Some of the basic rights mentioned that animals possess are: the right to life (the right to not be killed for food, etc.), property rights (not being taken from without consent, and not being Wheelzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10451673940827550240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914031138285965395.post-8816291730318767352014-10-28T14:15:36.618-05:002014-10-28T14:15:36.618-05:00Alright, so the social contract applies to beings ...Alright, so the social contract applies to beings that are sentient, and it applies to them even though they may not be capable of understanding that their lives can be better or worse than they are.<br /><br />I want to pursue another line of questioning. I’m not sure that this contractarianism implies veganism.<br /><br />Consider an egg-laying hen – not the kind confined to a factory farm, Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17871449956946319684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914031138285965395.post-77508889081069209152014-10-27T19:37:37.681-05:002014-10-27T19:37:37.681-05:00Thanks to Ray for posting my (brief) replies. I...Thanks to Ray for posting my (brief) replies. I'll now offer a more extensive reply to Michael's objection.<br /><br />First, imagining one's self in various roles has obvious limits. It's arguably difficult to imagine myself as, say, a dog, because if I were a dog, I wouldn't be myself. However, it's crucial to realize that this epistemic limitation is grounded in a Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14620970884523516429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914031138285965395.post-45153143944748607872014-10-27T19:06:45.270-05:002014-10-27T19:06:45.270-05:00Blake kindly sent me a reply in response to the ob...Blake kindly sent me a reply in response to the objections so far. It is taken from an article called "Contractarianism and Animal Rights" by philosopher Mark Rowlands. Here it is. See what you think.<br /><br />(1) Contractualism doesn't entail that persons with cognitive disabilities are persons to whom we lack direct duties. The reason is that cognitive gifts are part of the Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17871449956946319684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914031138285965395.post-91904777179069578242014-10-27T10:19:22.848-05:002014-10-27T10:19:22.848-05:00I want to explore an objection similar to Michael’...I want to explore an objection similar to Michael’s. Like him, I wonder whether there are better or worse animal lives “from the animal’s point of view.” I would doubt that an animal that is experiencing a lousy life has any conception of what a better life is like. The same probably applies to a person with severe mental retardation (as Zach pointed out). But to my mind this may mean that weAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17871449956946319684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914031138285965395.post-58042857574797085592014-10-23T19:14:57.885-05:002014-10-23T19:14:57.885-05:00Michael, when applying the veil of ignorance speci...Michael, when applying the veil of ignorance specifically to human beings, ought we attempt to imagine what is like to be like those that we can imagine to be like (e.g. the "rich" or the "poor" human) and merely consider the rights of those who we cannot think like (e.g. those in a persistent vegetative state)? It seems difficult to me to be able to think like a person in a Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07903290006122477508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914031138285965395.post-48107351406348858682014-10-23T13:18:59.331-05:002014-10-23T13:18:59.331-05:00The Veil of Ignorance works because we can imagine...The Veil of Ignorance works because we can imagine what it's like to be a "rich" human, "poor" human, "black" human, "white" human. The problem with using the veil to ground animal rights is that we have no idea what it's like to be a dog, lobster, moth, etc. Claiming to know what rights a "rational dog" expects is to be guilty of an Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06553593621846104052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914031138285965395.post-59783084231760275432014-10-16T21:21:19.897-05:002014-10-16T21:21:19.897-05:00Ray - thanks for the comment. Yes, I definitely a...Ray - thanks for the comment. Yes, I definitely agree that some (in fact, many and probably most) non-anonymous Christians would require the kind of sanctification purgatory would provide. I think my argument is more that if one is an inclusivist, she should probably also believe in purgatory. As I said in my final paragraph, though, I think purgatory is an option for the exclusivist as well.<Wheelzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10451673940827550240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7914031138285965395.post-29201766009940505982014-10-16T19:06:22.882-05:002014-10-16T19:06:22.882-05:00Scott, good post. I'm wondering why the argum...Scott, good post. I'm wondering why the argument depends on the notion of "anonymous Christians." Wouldn't some NON-anonymous Christians also likely require the kind of sanctification that purgatory could provide, that would make them more suitable to stand in the presence of God? I'm not sure what you mean by sanctification, and how anonymous Christians would need it butAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17871449956946319684noreply@blogger.com