Reflections

Why god isn’t really a teapot.

by Lisa Furberg, Stockholm University
November 3, 2010

by Lisa Furberg

Russell’s teapot is an analogy intended to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove the existence of god. The argument roughly goes something like this: If I were to claim that there is a teapot revolving about the sun and then further suggest that because my claim cannot be disproved there is no reason to doubt it, then I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.
In line with Russell’s analogy, some atheists have “invented” more things in which belief seems just as ridiculous as that in a an orbiting teapot: a flying spaghetti monster, an invisible pink unicorn -to mention a few. This kind of criticism, often coming from people who are self purportedly “scientifically minded” seem to use variants of the original analogy into an argument that seem to have little resemblance to Russell’s original one. This new argument has considerably more “bite” to it, suggesting that belief in god is something of an absolute “no-no”: If you are a rational person who believes in the methods of science, the critics seem to say, you simply ought not believe in the existence of god (or gods) any more than you should believe in an orbiting teapot. So, does a belief in god transgress any of the principles of (good) science?

Virtue is back, and I’m worried about my mortgage

by Charles Foster
October 11, 2010

Professional ethicists have traditionally sniffed at virtue ethics, regarding them as folk philosophy; intrinsically subjective and therefore worthless. They are what you fall back on when you haven’t got a proper argument. You don’t need a PhD to hold a position justified by virtue ethics, and accordingly that position is suspect.

Should we rid the world of carnivores if we could?

by Alexandre Erler
September 27, 2010January 8, 2011

by Alexandre Erler

In a provocative piece for the New York Times, Jeff McMahan remarks that cruelty pervades the natural world: he stresses the vast amount of suffering and the violent deaths inflicted by predators on their innocent victims. He then invites us to consider a daring way of preventing such suffering and deaths: “Suppose that we could arrange the gradual extinction of carnivorous species, replacing them with new herbivorous ones. Or suppose that we could intervene genetically, so that currently carnivorous species would gradually evolve into herbivorous ones, thereby fulfilling Isaiah’s prophecy. If we could bring about the end of predation by one or the other of these means at little cost to ourselves, ought we to do it?” McMahan’s conclusion, which he describes himself as “heretical”, is that we do have a moral reason to desire the extinction of carnivorous species, and that it would be good to bring about their extinction if this could be done “without ecological upheaval involving more harm than would be prevented by the end of predation”.

Do we harm our children by revealing their sex?

by Rebecca Roache, Royal Holloway University of London
August 7, 2010

by Rebecca Roache

I am over a
month late reading the news of the Swedish couple who have chosen to keep the
sex of their toddler a closely-guarded secret, but the story is too interesting
to pass up the opportunity to write about it here.

The parents
of the two-and-a-half year old child, known as Pop, explain, ‘We want Pop to
grow up more freely and avoid being forced into a specific gender mould from the
outset. It's cruel to bring a child into
the world with a blue or pink stamp on their forehead’. The wish to protect one’s child from gender
stereotyping is understandable, but is refusing to reveal Pop’s sex going
too far?

Greeks and geeks

by Charles Foster
July 15, 2010

At Harvard Medical School someone is screaming, reports the Boston Globe. ‘Death!’, he shrieks, ‘Why after all these years have you not appeared?’ He begs for euthanasia, tormented by his pain. Medical students listen to him.

His lines were written by Sophocles, and the students are listening because they have to: it is part of their curriculum.

The remarkable thing is not that Harvard medical students are being marinated in Sophocles, but that the Globe thought it worth reporting. Most medical students in mainstream western universities will get some ethics teaching. Sophocles is just one tool in the teachers’ toolkit. It’s a very effective one, by all accounts, but no different in kind from the lectures and seminars more conventionally deployed. Ethics teaching aims to teach students some problem-solving strategies, and to help them to recognise, evaluate, criticise, cull or cultivate the values that they themselves bring to the wards.

Against Equality

by Practical Ethics
June 17, 2010

by Julian Savulescu

Equality is an ideal born of the vice of envy, one of the seven deadly sins. But equality has no intrinsic value and panders to our vicious nature to be envious of others. Levelling down is absurd. And why level up if we can raise everyone, improving all of their lives instead of just some? To reduce people’s envy of others, when their own lives are good and better? That is no reason.