“You were always wriggling” mom says. “I could never get a nappy on you without a fight” “I still can’t stop fidgeting,” the boy says. “I know,” chimes in dad, “I have to sit next to you at mealtimes!” “Haha. You wriggled so much in my womb I couldn’t sleep.” Mom hugs her son. “During labor you you managed to get the cord wrapped round your neck and had to be pulled out extra quick.” “I’m glad you made it, son” “Wait a minute,” the abortionist interjects, “there was no “you” in the womb. “you” refers to a person, but you were not a person in the womb. You were…
-
-
Pronoun Paradox
If I told you that my car was a Ferrari, you would say I was mistaken. You would probably take me outside to my driveway and point saying, “look! your car is a Saturn Vue.” If I replied, “no, it is a Ferrari,” you would think that something had gone very wrong. You might point again and say “but can’t you see? Just look at that white car over there! It looks nothing like a Ferrari.” “White car?” I reply. “But that car is red. And it is a Ferrari.” Now you are clear: Ben has lost his mind. Let’s assume I have not lost my mind, that I am…
-
Abortionist Logical Consistency: A Right for the Goose Should be a Right for the Gander
Some positions are best opposed by trying to show what would follow from their view. Modus Tollens is particularly helpful in this way and takes the following form: if A, then B. Not B. Therefore, not A. They have the useful feature of providing the user with a tool for showing horrible consequences that can force someone to reject the antecedent. For example, a favored argument against abortion is to suggest that if abortion is morally justifiable, then infanticide is justifiable. The anti-abortionist relies on the consequent being plainly intolerable and should lead to the rejection of the antecedent. Those who are consistent are forced either to accept the consequent…
-
HQ Awards: Fallacy of the Year
Anne: “I oppose X” George: “You only oppose X because you are a Y” A: “No, I oppose X because of reasons A, B, and C.” G: “You only think A, B, and C because you are a Y.” A: “No, I really think A, B, and C are true.” G: “You wouldn’t oppose X if you were a Z” A: “Maybe, but A, B, and C would still be true if I was a Z and so I ought to oppose X even if I didn’t” G: “But if you were a Z how would you know about A, B, and C?” A: “Someone would have to tell me about A, B, and C. This is what I am trying…
-
Is it Wrong to Impose Christian Beliefs on Others?
If you are a Christian and you think certain actions are immoral, then you are very likely to hear the following retort: Christians are allowed to hold Christian beliefs. But it is wrong for Christians to impose those beliefs on other people. The sentiment is reflected much of the current debates over the significance of genitalia in determining gender, the scope of possible marriage partners, and the moral status of the entity living inside the womb of a pregnant woman. Presumably, the beliefs in question are those beliefs that lead to laws of countries. Such beliefs might include: it is morally wrong to take the life of a child in…
-
Bad Fruit
Perhaps S believes x and Q believes ~x. They wildly disagree over the dinner table. So Q writes an article in HP (the major competitor to HQ) arguing to the effect that S has a right to believe x but the law of the land should not reflect x but instead ~x. Q thinks that if the law according to x is applied then there would be lots of suffering to people who are P. Suffering is bad. Therefore, we should instead apply ~x to the law because, says she, the application of ~x would cause much less harm to people who are P. What should we think of such an…
-
My Top Five Philosophy Podcasts
Philosophy Bites is perhaps the granddaddy of philosophical podcasting. David Edmonds and Nigel Warburton interview philosophers graciously and insightfully. When I was starting out this was my go-to. Each podcast lasts no more than twenty minutes and yet manages to cover a topic succinctly and sufficiently. In Our Time is hosted by the inimitable Melvin Bragg who readily admits his limited background in philosophy. This is a distinct advantage as he will interject at the slightest whiff of an interviewee careering off into some highly technical phi-jargon. The discussions are usually between Bragg and three experts in the field and are fairly sweeping in scope covering movements, figures and historical…
-
Why Temporal Moral Relativism Fails
Temporal moral relativism is the view that some moral rules are binding at one time but not other times. For example, some people think that adultery was morally wrong in 1965 and adultery is not morally wrong in 2016. The view is a denial of the existence of universal moral rules. Universal moral rules are rules that are binding for all people at all times in all circumstances. Thorsten J. Pattberg gives a reason why we might be tempted to hold such a view: Certain forms of moral corruption that were once considered despicably evil are now acceptable behavior already; we don’t even think about them as moral failings at…