Combining Philosophers

All the ideas for Hermarchus, David Hildebrand and Edward Craig

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


3 ideas

11. Knowledge Aims / A. Knowledge / 3. Value of Knowledge
We have the concept of 'knowledge' as a label for good informants [Craig, by Fricker,M]
     Full Idea: Craig's explanation of why we have the concept of knowledge is that it arises from our fundamental need to distinguish good informants.
     From: report of Edward Craig (Knowledge and the State of Nature [1990]) by Miranda Fricker - Epistemic Injustice 6.1
     A reaction: That is, why do we have the label 'knowledge', in addition to 'true belief'? This strikes me as a good explanation which had never occurred to me. Every social group needs to identify members who have some authority in knowledge of various areas of life.
24. Political Theory / D. Ideologies / 13. Green Politics
Should we value environmental systems for human benefit, or for their own sake? [Hildebrand]
     Full Idea: There is a long-running debate between anthropo-centrists and eco-centrists. The latter believe that humans must protect environmental systems because they have intrinsic value; the former argue that human interests are the root of all value.
     From: David Hildebrand (Dewey [2008], 8 'Environ')
     A reaction: How many tigers would you kill to save a human life? Would you allow a human to die in order to save a species from extinction? It is very hard to think that the Earth has great value if humans are removed from it!
25. Social Practice / F. Life Issues / 6. Animal Rights
Animals are dangerous and nourishing, and can't form contracts of justice [Hermarchus, by Sedley]
     Full Idea: Hermarchus said that animal killing is justified by considerations of human safety and nourishment and by animals' inability to form contractual relations of justice with us.
     From: report of Hermarchus (fragments/reports [c.270 BCE]) by David A. Sedley - Hermarchus
     A reaction: Could the last argument be used to justify torturing animals? Or could we eat a human who was too brain-damaged to form contracts?