|
9316
|
How is self-representation possible, does it produce a regress, and is experience like that? [Kriegel/Williford]
|
|
Full Idea:
The difficulties with a self-representational view of consciousness are how self-representation of mental states could be possible, whether it leads to an infinite regress, and whether it can capture the actual phenomenology of experience.
|
|
From:
U Kriegel / K Williford (Intro to 'Self-Representational Consciousness' [2006], §3)
|
|
A reaction:
[compressed] All of these objections strike me as persuasive, especially the first one. I'm not sure I know what self-representation is. Mirrors externally represent, and they can't represent themselves. Two mirrors together achieve something..
|
|
9314
|
Unfortunately, higher-order representations could involve error [Kriegel/Williford]
|
|
Full Idea:
A problem for explaining consciousness by higher-order representations is that, like their first-order counterparts, they can misrepresent; there could be a subjective impression of being in a conscious state without actually being in any conscious state.
|
|
From:
U Kriegel / K Williford (Intro to 'Self-Representational Consciousness' [2006], §1)
|
|
A reaction:
It sounds plausible that this is a logical possibility, but how do you assess whether it is an actual or natural possibility? Are we saying that higher-order representations are judgments, which could be true or false? Hm.
|
|
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.
|
|
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?
|
|
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.
|