Tag Archives: Morality

Discussion: Is It Wrong To Share Copyrighted Music? Pt.1


File sharing: equivalent to defecating in the helmet of a policeman you murdered.

I spoke with my good friend, musician and philosopher Toby Coe, who argues that we should not download or share music without the copyright holder’s permission.

Peter Hardy (PH): So would you contend that file sharing is wrong because it is stealing?

Toby Coe (TC): Partly, but the obvious caveat is that unlike traditional examples of stealing, the victim is not actually denied the right to their property as an object, but rather as a means of receiving remuneration for their labour. Read the rest of this entry


Lewis’ Law


Unfortunately a law that holds true, for the meantime.

Feminist Philosophers

A recent article entitled, “Donglegate: Why the Tech Community Hates Feminism” referenced Lewis’ Law, which is explained above.  What do people think?

Also, I really hope the article linked above is mistaken about the increased popularity of MRAs.

Also also, Lewis’ Law, if sound, definitely applies to the article linked above.

View original post

Is It Acceptable For Men To Argue Against Abortion?


sex-symbolsEven though I don’t engage in pro-life campaigning, in expressing my philosophical views I’m frequently berated with the comment as a man I’m not allowed to have an opinion on abortion. Occasionally this is made as a polite suggestion, but the overall impression I get is that it is used as an anti-intellectual manoeuvre to try to shut down critical enquiry on this ideologically-charged topic.

In any case it is simply a ridiculous argument. Firstly it’s an ad hominem. There’s obviously no logical relationship between the individual who happens to be articulating an argument and the soundness of that argument. Read the rest of this entry

Philosophers discover new moral principle


I am ambivalent about publicising the fact that the chief research tool of us philosophers, the thought experiment, is little more than a game of ‘would you rather’ (you know, like Peter Griffin’s friends play on Family Guy), but I must register my dissent from this supposed new principle. I would definitely rather kill a little girl’s puppy because it would teach her a valuable lesson about mortality, and she can get many more puppies. While killing and old lady’s cat might be killing her only source of happiness in life, as well as her oldest and last remaining friend.


A previously unrecognized moral principle was discovered last week after ethicists at the University of Mesa realized that they would rather kill an old lady’s cat than a young girl’s puppy. The principle of moral naivete, as it is being called, justifies this preference by holding that the wrongness of inflicting a given harm can depend in part on the degree to which the victim has previously been exposed to such a harm.

The breakthrough came late Thursday as several members of the Moral Philosophy Research Group analyzed the results of a thought experiment they had run earlier in the night. “We were messing around, getting pretty sloshed,” explains Anthony Vega, the group’s principal investigator. “Basically it was just another night at The Lab,” a local bar and the group’s favorite venue for conducting research. Vega and several graduate students were playing Would You Rather, a party game and the standard research tool in…

View original post 307 more words


Perhaps inevitably, the focal point becomes the willy.

As someone who feels they engage with issues of real controversy daily it is hard to underestimate the frustration of seeing debates one regards as long-settled inflame people again and again month after month. Presently, one such issue has been brought to the fore by Non-Prophet Week, a week of charitable giving by the non-religious, 29 October – 4 November. This is the third annual incarnation of the event organised by the British Federation of Atheist, Humanist, and Secularist Student Societies (AHS).  Read the rest of this entry

Atheism and Morality; Plato and Natural Law


Glory of Colour - Sujanan

My post which was the most original (philosophically) so far was a discussion of the relationship between Eudaimonology and Soteriology. I posed a few questions about the former which will take a long time to answer (such is philosophy).

At the most general level my project is to defend eudaimonology as highly relevant and as the central concern of philosophy. Of course an important part of this project is refining an appropriate definition of the subject. While so far I have only made introductory posts about a third of the different traditions I’m aware of, I realised a working definition while reading the other night. If I remember correctly it looked something like this…

Eudaimonology is study of how human life is to be lived, focusing on:

1. What human beings are (the task of philosophical anthropology),

2. What makes human life fulfilling (a conceptual as well as psychological question),

3. How human beings should interact with one another (the task of ethics and socio-political philosophy),

4. How human nature can transcend itself to become something greater (a soteriological question).

Regarding the first of these, Vincent Nichols said recently that the understanding of human nature is an excellent basis upon which to carry out public discourse because it cuts away pernicious individualism. I agree. Though my expertise falls more towards the study of point 4 (and to a lesser extent points 3 and 2), we should begin from the common acceptance of the human species as the product of natural selection. After this, there are many different theories/traditions in the debate on human nature. I have yet not studied these but I have indicated my sympathy for Marx’s early writings.

Eudaimonology Project Update