Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'Frege's Theory of Numbers', 'works' and 'No Moral Difference'

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

---

4 ideas

2. Reason / D. Definition / 1. Definitions

15927	Definition just needs negation, known variables, conjunction, disjunction, substitution and quantification [Weyl, by Lavine]
	Full Idea: For mathematics, Weyl arrived (by 1917) at a satisfactory list of definition principles: negation, identification of variables, conjunction, disjunction, substitution of constants, and existential quantification over the domain.
	From: report of Hermann Weyl (works [1917]) by Shaughan Lavine - Understanding the Infinite V.3
	A reaction: Lavine summarises this as 'first-order logic with parameters'.

6. Mathematics / A. Nature of Mathematics / 4. Using Numbers / c. Counting procedure

17447	Parsons says counting is tagging as first, second, third..., and converting the last to a cardinal [Parsons,C, by Heck]
	Full Idea: In Parsons's demonstrative model of counting, '1' means the first, and counting says 'the first, the second, the third', where one is supposed to 'tag' each object exactly once, and report how many by converting the last ordinal into a cardinal.
	From: report of Charles Parsons (Frege's Theory of Numbers [1965]) by Richard G. Heck - Cardinality, Counting and Equinumerosity 3
	A reaction: This sounds good. Counting seems to rely on that fact that numbers can be both ordinals and cardinals. You don't 'convert' at the end, though, because all the way you mean 'this cardinality in this order'.

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

4053	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?

4052	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.