Combining Philosophers

All the ideas for Brad W. Hooker, Charles Darwin and James Cargile

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     specify just one area for these philosophers

---

8 ideas

5. Theory of Logic / G. Quantification / 6. Plural Quantification

14235	Saying 'they can become a set' is a tautology, because reference to 'they' implies a collection [Cargile]
	Full Idea: If the rule is asserted 'Given any well-determined objects, they can be collected into a set by an application of the 'set of' operation', then on the usual account of 'they' this is a tautology. Collection comes automatically with this form of reference.
	From: James Cargile (Paradoxes: Form and Predication [1979], p.115), quoted by Oliver,A/Smiley,T - What are Sets and What are they For? Intro
	A reaction: Is this a problem? Given they are well-determined (presumably implying countable) there just is a set of them. That's what set theory is, I thought. Of course, the iterative view talks of 'constructing' the sets, but the construction looks unstoppable.

14. Science / D. Explanation / 3. Best Explanation / a. Best explanation

16861	A false theory could hardly rival the explanatory power of natural selection [Darwin]
	Full Idea: It can hardly be supposed that a false theory would explain, in so satisfactory a manner as does the theory of natural selection, the several large classes of facts above specified.
	From: Charles Darwin (The Origin of the Species [1859], p.476), quoted by Peter Lipton - Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) 11 'The scientific'
	A reaction: More needs to be said, since the whims of God could explain absolutely everything (in a manner that would be somehow less that fully satisfying to the enquiring intellect).

22. Metaethics / A. Ethics Foundations / 2. Source of Ethics / i. Prescriptivism

2854	Prescriptivism says 'ought' without commitment to act is insincere, or weakly used [Hooker,B]
	Full Idea: Prescriptivism holds that if you think one 'ought' to do a certain kind of act, and yet you are not committed to doing that act in the relevant circumstances, then you either spoke insincerely, or are using the word 'ought' in a weak sense.
	From: Brad W. Hooker (Prescriptivism [1995], p.640)
	A reaction: So that's an 'ought', but not a 'genuine ought', then? (No True Scotsman move). Someone ought to rescue that drowning child, but I can't be bothered.

23. Ethics / B. Contract Ethics / 2. Golden Rule

2856	Universal moral judgements imply the Golden Rule ('do as you would be done by') [Hooker,B]
	Full Idea: Prescriptivity is especially important if moral judgements are universalizable, for then we can employ golden rule-style reasoning ('do as you would be done by').
	From: Brad W. Hooker (Prescriptivism [1995], p.640)

23. Ethics / E. Utilitarianism / 2. Ideal of Pleasure

20883	Modern utilitarians value knowledge, friendship, autonomy, and achievement, as well as pleasure [Hooker,B]
	Full Idea: Most utilitarians now think that pleasure, even if construed widely, is not the only thing desirable in itself. ...Goods also include important knowledge, friendship, autonomy, achievement and so on.
	From: Brad W. Hooker (Rule Utilitarianism and Euthanasia [1997], 2)
	A reaction: That pleasure is desired is empirically verifiable, which certainly motivated Bentham. A string of other desirables each needs to be justified - but how? What would be the value of a 'friendship' if neither party got pleasure from it?

23. Ethics / E. Utilitarianism / 5. Rule Utilitarianism

20884	Rule-utilitarians prevent things like torture, even on rare occasions when it seems best [Hooker,B]
	Full Idea: For rule-utilitarians acts of murder, torture and so on, can be impermissible even in rare cases where they really would produce better consequences than any alternative act.
	From: Brad W. Hooker (Rule Utilitarianism and Euthanasia [1997], 4)
	A reaction: It is basic to rule-utilitarianism that it trumps act-ulitilarianism, even when a particular act wins the utilitarian calculation. But that is hard to understand. Only long-term benefit could justify the rule - but that should win the calculation.

25. Social Practice / F. Life Issues / 2. Euthanasia

20885	Euthanasia is active or passive, and voluntary, non-voluntary or involuntary [Hooker,B]
	Full Idea: Six types of euthanasia: 1) Active voluntary (knowing my wishes), 2) Active non-voluntary (not knowing my wishes), 3) Active involuntary (against my wishes), 4) Passive voluntary, 5) Passive non-voluntary, 6) Passive involuntary.
	From: Brad W. Hooker (Rule Utilitarianism and Euthanasia [1997], 5)
	A reaction: 'Active' is intervening, and 'passive' is not intervening. A helpful framework.

20882	Euthanasia may not involve killing, so it is 'killing or not saving, out of concern for that person' [Hooker,B]
	Full Idea: Passive euthanasia is arguably not killing, and the death involved is often painful, so let us take the term 'euthanasia' to mean 'either killing or passing up opportunities to save someone, out of concern for that person'.
	From: Brad W. Hooker (Rule Utilitarianism and Euthanasia [1997], 1)
	A reaction: This sounds good, and easily settled, until you think concern for that person could have two different outcomes, depending on whether the criteria are those of the decider or of the patient. Think of religious decider and atheist patient, or vice versa.