Frey's stipulative definition of the terms 'want' and 'desire' seems to me to take away from his argument. He stipulates by saying that he believes in wanting as in needing. Why don't we just say that animals can need but not desire?
In popular usage want and desire are used interchangeably, so by using these terms he accomplished confusing the issue a bit. Now is it true that animals only have needs but not desires? Frey says no, because desires can only be formed if one has belief's to form them with, and belief's can only be formed with language. Though I can not back this up, I think Frey will have a hard time proving that you absolutely cannot form beliefs without language.
Maybe he thinks that the quality of a declarative statement does not arise from a thought behind the language but rather from the structure of the language itself. My intuition says that language should not be confused with though, and while language and thought are related, the mind can deal with mental objects and have beliefs without using language.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Gay Marriage in California
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/us/marriage-ban-violates-constitution-court-rules.html?ref=us
If you haven't heard, the Californian Supreme Court struck down Prop 8. While things aren't going into effect immediately, the decision is being appealed to the US Supreme Court, this is a huge victory for gay marriage advocates.
If you haven't heard, the Californian Supreme Court struck down Prop 8. While things aren't going into effect immediately, the decision is being appealed to the US Supreme Court, this is a huge victory for gay marriage advocates.
Society Failing
I am an avid Al Jazeera reader and came across this article about homelessness, particularly in Washington DC. I think we all recognize that as a national community we should strive for a nation where even the worst off are cared for in some way or another.
The myth that if you work hard you can become wealthy or even keep your head above water is nothing but a myth. You cannot control your health and if you loose your health there is nothing you can do to continue to work, and on top of that you have to some how pay for your medical care. I don't feel that while we are still the richest nation on earth it is moral to allow this to happen when, through the government or some other institution, we can pay to provide a safety net for every American.
The myth that if you work hard you can become wealthy or even keep your head above water is nothing but a myth. You cannot control your health and if you loose your health there is nothing you can do to continue to work, and on top of that you have to some how pay for your medical care. I don't feel that while we are still the richest nation on earth it is moral to allow this to happen when, through the government or some other institution, we can pay to provide a safety net for every American.
Responding to 'Analysis and Feeling'
In response to Avery's Analysis and Feeling (found here)I would contend that emotion does play an initial role in what course one will take in their argumentation. It is necessary to feel out what ones initial opinions are on the subject, but emotional attachment needs to be completely shed when thinking rational. In short I agree with Avery.
One of the most striking examples is found in the response I have observed to Peter Singer's 'Singer Solution to World Poverty.' Where he outlines a case where it is the moral duty for everyone to give up a significant amount of their worldly wealth in order to help those humans in need around the world.
I read this in College Writing II, and what was fascinating was that while no one could come up with a reasonable counter response, everyone in the class was against his philosophy. People simply did not want to give up all of their excess money and goods like Singer suggested, and even while they could not develop a response they were firmly against.
One of the most striking examples is found in the response I have observed to Peter Singer's 'Singer Solution to World Poverty.' Where he outlines a case where it is the moral duty for everyone to give up a significant amount of their worldly wealth in order to help those humans in need around the world.
I read this in College Writing II, and what was fascinating was that while no one could come up with a reasonable counter response, everyone in the class was against his philosophy. People simply did not want to give up all of their excess money and goods like Singer suggested, and even while they could not develop a response they were firmly against.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Qatari King & PM on 60 Minutes
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7395216n
The above link is to a clip that discusses the rise of Qatar as a nation of influence in the Middle East. The interesting bit is how Qatar follows a policy of promoting democracy in the Middle East (through Al Jazeera & aid to the Arab Spring) but the king does not abdicate to give way for democracy in his own country. Now the relevant bit: is this moral?
If we assume democracy is a good thing, is it moral for an autocrat to put his support behind democracy abroad because that may have the largest effect in the world?
The above link is to a clip that discusses the rise of Qatar as a nation of influence in the Middle East. The interesting bit is how Qatar follows a policy of promoting democracy in the Middle East (through Al Jazeera & aid to the Arab Spring) but the king does not abdicate to give way for democracy in his own country. Now the relevant bit: is this moral?
If we assume democracy is a good thing, is it moral for an autocrat to put his support behind democracy abroad because that may have the largest effect in the world?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)