Hi Everyone!

The August 2010 Meetup (http://ethics.meetup.com/4/ and http://philosophy-in-LA.tribe.net) is happening this Sunday, August 8, 5:00 PM - 7:30 PM (the 2nd Sunday of the month). We'll be at our usual venue in Santa Monica. New participants from all backgrounds, points of view, political and religious belief (or non-belief) are most welcome. Driving directions will be in the next email in a few days.

If your plans to attend has changed, please update your RSVP! If you're not able to make it, please free up a space on the RSVP list for someone else.

Feel free to join us for dinner and more conversation after the meeting. Location and details TBA. Please mark your calendar with the dates of the next few gatherings: September 12 at 5 PM (the 2nd Sunday), October 17 at 5 PM (the 3rd Sunday) and, tentatively, November 14 at 5 pm (the 2nd Sunday).

As always, we're voting on the meeting's topic now. I've listed, in order of length, five philosophical questions or conundrums suggested by the group during previous meetings or by email. Please reply to this email (soon) with the name of the topic(s) that you would most like to talk about! (Anybody can send in a vote, even if you haven't been to previous meetings.) I will send a reminder email Wednesday or so, letting you know which topic won the vote and what article readings we have.

As always, we're voting on the meeting's topic now. I've listed, in order of length, five philosophical questions or conundrums suggested by the group during previous meetings or by email. Please reply to this email (soon) with the name of the topic(s) that you would most like to talk about! I will send a reminder email Wednesday or so, letting you know which topic won the vote and what article readings we have.


1) MORAL PERFECTIONISM: How good should we strive to be? Is it okay to simply do the minimum, morally speaking (e.g., generally 'follow the rules' and refrain from doing significant harm to individuals and society as a whole), and do more than the minimum only if that suits our inclinations? After all, that's a lot more than many people manage to do. In what sense, if any, are we obligated to do more than that? Should we try to be as morally good as we can? Why bother?


2) DO WE KNOW WHETHER SOMETHING IS GOOD ART RATHER THAN BAD ART? Are our judgments of beauty and artistic merit arbitrary, or do they have a more substantial basis? Is artistic merit mainly a matter of beauty, or are other factors as important or more important (e.g., the ethical, intellectual, or political merits of a work of art)?

Note: a year ago we discussed the related but distinct "What is art, how can we define it?" topic. By contrast, this "good art/ bad art" topic assumes that we already have objects or performances that we take to be art. We're concerned with assessing its beauty or other artistic merits, not with saying why it is or isn't art, or what defines art.


3) CONSPIRACY THEORIES: How can you tell the difference between an unsupportable "conspiracy theory" and an actual (or at least plausible) conspiracy? Is a conspiracy theory simply a conspiracy that turns out to be untrue, or poorly supported by the evidence? Or, is there something more to it than that? Consider this: while a very knowledgeable investigator into a conspiracy may directly know the evidence well enough to decide whether it is true or probable, you almost never do. Yet, most of us have strong opinions on how likely any given conspiracy is, and on the personality or reasonableness of those who agree or disagree with us on the matter.

Of course, you may agree that other, more gullible people believe in all manner of wacky conspiracy theories, and nevertheless be convinced of the truth of a particular conspiracy that the authorities or the public as a whole disbelieve, out of ignorance, self-interest or indifference. You may even be right; real conspiracies do exist, and not everyone realizes right away (or ever) which ones are real. But, how can you be sure? After all, everyone who believes in a conspiracy thinks there's adequate evidence for it.


4) TERRORISM: HOW DO YOU DEFINE IT, and is it ever justified? Can it even be defined impartially and definitively? The 9/11 attacks in New York are deemed by nearly everyone to be a clear example of terrorism, but consider other cases that may or may not constitute terrorism. The 9/11 attacks on the Pentagon. Kidnapping by drug cartels in South & Central America. Pilotless drones shooting missiles at militant leaders known to be hiding among civilians in Pakistan. An "ecoterrorist" who burns down an SUV dealership, inadvertently killing a night guard. The suicide truck bombing of US Marines in Lebanon in 1983. The Unabomber, a lone actor of questionable sanity with an unclear political aim (before he was caught, at least) and unassociated with any terrorist group. A cyberattack by an unknown group that disables millions of computers and shuts down most internet access in a country. The atomic bombing of Hiroshima or the firebombing of Dresden during WWII. Each of those actual or predicted events has been held us as a clear example of terrorism by one or another government or political theorist. You can undoubtedly think of more cases; feel free to bring up your own controversial or borderline example, real or imagined, as well as your reasons why it is or isn't a case of terrorism.


5) WHAT IS A PERSON? What are the important, relevant characteristics that makes someone or something a person rather than a thing, animal or something else? So far, "person" has usually been restricted to human beings, but that may change when and if technology allows computers or animals to be endowed with something similar to or better than human intelligence, emotions, capacity for subjective experience, and so on. Furthermore, many thinkers hold that we are already inconsistent in our use of the term person. For example, should we apply the term to humans with severe and non-reparable brain damage (e.g., someone an irreversible coma)? Should we apply the term to animals like chimps (which have a kind of intelligence similar to that of three-year old children), some whales or dolphins?

The "personhood" notion has an ethical relevance since, roughly speaking, persons are seen as having full moral and legal rights, and non-persons (e.g., animals, plants, inanimate objects and, arguably, zygotes or fetuses) generally do not. In addition, persons are held up to different standards of behavior, for instance, we hold people morally responsible for their actions, but we don't hold a shark or a snake morally responsible for its behavior.

We can also think about personhood in terms of a thought experiment. Imagine that scientists make a creature from a mixture of the genetic material of humans and nonhumans. How do we know whether we should think of it and treat it as a person? Of the many features, abilities, traits and behaviors that adult humans possess, which ones would the creature need to have in order for us to count it as a person? A similar thought experiment: consider a normal adult human, and imagine what features of the person that, if taken away, would render him/her no longer a person.
---------------------------

Send in a vote for your favorite topic(s) now!

I hope to see you there!

Brian

Ps. Several have asked, so here are the Philosophy group discussion guidelines---the ones I hand out at each meeting--in digital form for the first time, abbreviated due to of space limitations

(Send comments you have to Brian Gould, [address removed])

? We have 6 simple rules: 1st, please don't interrupt, and do be respectful of others. This is not a TV-style "shoutdown." 2nd, please stick to the point and keep comments tied closely to the question of the day. If you have a great comment, but can't think of how to tie it in to today's topic, save it for a time when we're talking about that topic! 3rd, please limit yourself to a maximum of 1 minute each time you speak. If you can't get your ideas out in a minute, don't worry, you'll have another minute to talk. 4th, in the small groups, give everyone a chance to speak. 5th, truly listen to what the person speaking is saying; don't just plan what you are going to say next!

? Don't hesitate to speak just because you don't have an extensive background in philosophy. We focus on ideas we ourselves conversation than a fixed body of academic writings. Philosophy is something you don't need an academic background for (though it certainly helps), since everyone already philosophizes. Theories and arguments are woven throughout daily speech and social interaction. Many or most of the questions philosophers have pondered are issues that arise in situations we all face regularly.

? If someone mentions an idea, term, theory or philosopher you're not familiar with, I encourage you to immediately ask for clarification! Everyone will be glad you did. Likewise, if you mention a specialized academic idea, please explain it so everyone is included in the discussion and can grasp your point. Nearly all philosophical ideas and terms are translatable into everyday language. Think of your ability to do this as a challenge to your intellect and a measure of how clearly you understand the concepts.

? Our purpose is to practice the art of conversation about the interesting and important philosophical ideas underlying the great issues of the day ? and to leave yourself open to being changed by what you hear. Our approach combines group brainstorming with the attempt to decide which ideas make the most sense to us and have the best reasons behind them. One goal is to design better answers for ourselves to philosophical questions?not so easy to do! Other (more readily achievable) goals include thinking more clearly about important questions, making our assumptions clear, articulating our own vague or unstated views, thinking of new ways to ask old questions, and understanding how other smart people can believe things so different from what we believe. And, of course, to enjoy the camaraderie, conversation and friendship of interesting people!

? Do your best to support your ideas with arguments rather than merely saying what you believe or feel. This lets us understand more than just what you think, but also why you think it, why it makes sense to you, and how your ideas are useful to the rest of us. You generally have more and better reasons for your beliefs than you realize. Clarify them for yourself and us!