Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'works', 'Completeness of Axioms of Logic' and 'No Moral Difference'

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


4 ideas

4. Formal Logic / C. Predicate Calculus PC / 3. Completeness of PC
Gödel proved the completeness of first order predicate logic in 1930 [Gödel, by Walicki]
     Full Idea: Gödel proved the completeness of first order predicate logic in his doctoral dissertation of 1930.
     From: report of Kurt Gödel (Completeness of Axioms of Logic [1930]) by Michal Walicki - Introduction to Mathematical Logic History E.2.2
17. Mind and Body / E. Mind as Physical / 7. Anti-Physicalism / a. Physicalism critique
Do new ideas increase the weight of the brain? [Dance]
     Full Idea: If someone gives you a piece of information, does your brain suddenly become heavier?
     From: Adam Dance (works [2001]), quoted by PG - Db (ideas)
     A reaction: A beautifully simple question, which is a reductio of the idea that information is simply a physical object. The question points to a functionalist account of brain activity.
25. Social Practice / F. Life Issues / 2. Euthanasia
If it is desirable that a given patient die, then moral objections to killing them do not apply [Rachels]
     Full Idea: The cause of death (injection or disease) is important from the legal point of view, but not morally. If euthanasia is desirable in a given case then the patient's death is not an evil, so the usual objections to killing do not apply.
     From: James Rachels (No Moral Difference [1975], p.102)
     A reaction: Seems reasonable, but a very consequentialist view. Is it good that small children should clean public toilets?
It has become normal to consider passive euthanasia while condemning active euthanasia [Rachels]
     Full Idea: It seems to have become accepted that passive euthanasia (by withholding treatment and allowing a patient to die) may be acceptable, whereas active euthanasia (direct action to kill the patient) is never acceptable.
     From: James Rachels (No Moral Difference [1975], p.97)
     A reaction: He goes on to attack the distinction. It is hard to distinguish the two cases, as well as being hard to judge them.