“Sincerity and reality… don’t make it the better. That which is real and hearty is often called sincere; whether it be in virtue or vice. Some persons are sincerely bad; others are sincerely good… But a being sincere, hearty and in good earnest, is no virtue, unless it be in a thing that is virtuous. A man may be sincere and hearty in joining a crew of pirates, or a gang of robbers. When the devils cried out, and besought Christ not to torment them, it was no mere pretense; they were very hearty in their desires not to be tormented: but this did not make their will or desires…
-
-
Cause And Consequences in the Problem of Evil
It has been suggested that to hold to a greater good defense (GGD) in response to the problem of evil, one must hold to a consequentialist theory of ethics. If the GGD proponent is not committed to consequentialism and is committed to an alternative ethical theory, a divine command theory, for example, then the GGD proponent is guilty of an inconsistency within his or her system of beliefs. This is a shame. The GGD is eminently plausible. So, is this right? The following is an attempt to provide a way out for the GGD proponent. Roughly I shall argue first that the GGD proponent does not have to appeal to…
-
Does Speech Have Rules?
Elizabeth Warren has been silenced in the Senate for impugning a fellow Senator. The rule tells Senators that criticizing the motives of a fellow Senator on the floor of the Senate is not allowed. Under Rule 19, Senators are not allowed to “directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.” Now, having a rule for speaking in the Sentate makes sense. Imagine if there were no rules in the Sentate! But, what about the rest of us? Do we have any rules to follow? Perhaps someone might think that what matters is what…
-
Your Rights: Acquired or Essential?
Do you acquire the rights associated with personhood or are they essential to you? Consider rights in general, the right to vote, for example. You didn’t always have this right. You acquired it. So, perhaps personhood is like the right to vote. You acquired it at some point in your development. The right to life goes along with being a person. If you are a person, anyone who kills you has committed a moral and legal wrong. Most pro-choice arguments talk about this right as if it is acquired at some point in the womb. Prior to counting as a person, however, it is morally justified to kill the entity…
-
An Ordinary Language Argument for Children in the Womb
“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…
-
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…
-
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…