Hi Everyone!

The June 2014 Meetup (http://ethics.meetup.com/4/ and http://philosophy-in-LA.tribe.net) is this Sunday, June 29, 5:00 PM - 7:30 PM. We'll be at our regular venue, the Community Room of the Colorado Center (AKA the Yahoo Center). New participants from all backgrounds, points of view, political and religious belief (or non-belief) are most welcome.

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

After the meeting, feel free to join us for dinner and more conversation. Location TBA.

FYI, here are the dates of future gatherings: July 20 (the 3rd Sunday at 5 pm) and, tentatively, August 17 (the 3rd Sunday at 5 pm) and September 21 (the 3rd Sunday at 5 pm)

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 (very 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'll send a reminder email in a day or so to let you know which topic won the vote and what readings, audios and/or videos we have for it.


1) "NOTHINGNESS": COULD THERE BE SUCH A THING? Why is there something rather than nothing? What does it mean to refer to “nothing” or to assert that “nothingness” exists? Is an empty world possible? Are the philosophers and the scientists talking about the same thing when they refer to “nothing” or pure absence?


2) CAN MY COLOR RED BE YOUR COLOR BLUE? Can we know such things as whether the colors I see as blue look the same as the colors you see as blue (assuming neither of us suffers from color-blindness)? And, do we need language to be able to perceive colors the way we do? If so, how does our language for colors affect our very experience of colors, and which colors we do and can perceive?


3) HEALTHCARE: A RIGHT OR A PRIVILEGE? Who is responsible for the cost of maintaining an individual’s physical well-being? Does society have an obligation to provide healthcare to citizens? If healthcare is a right or a requirement of social justice, then the government presumably has a duty to provide it or make sure someone else provides it. And, society must decide what kind of healthcare, and how much, should be provided. If healthcare is simply another social good, a mere issue of social policy like so many others, then the government has no obligation, though it may still decide that it is good policy to provide some level of it.


4) INVOLUNTARY TREATMENT OF THE MENTALLY ILL: under what circumstances (if any) should a person currently suffering a mental illness be forced into medical treatment? A generally accepted practice in many parts of the country is for the involuntary treatment or commitment of the mentally ill in cases of clear, imminent danger to themselves or others. Yet the potential for ambiguity and abuse exists, since it is a matter of interpretation as to whether a person is a danger to themselves or others, or whether a person is mentally incompetent to make medical decisions for themselves. One argument against involuntary treatment holds that it is one's right to live as one chooses, even to the extent of harming oneself. Another argument is that the criminal laws that apply equally to everyone are sufficient, and that going beyond criminal law to infringe on a person's liberty, as involuntary treatment is accused of doing, is unnecessary and too liable to abuse. For reasons like these, some argue for the abolition of involuntary treatment altogether.

By contrast, a controversial position some take is for involuntary treatment prior to a situation when a person is a danger to themselves or others. This view is often advocated on the grounds of doing what's in the person's best interest, or doing what that person would judge (if not in a mentally ill state of mind) his or her best interest to be, e.g., preventing a situation where the mentally ill person becomes dangerous to self or others in the first place. Critics of this position argue against it on the basis that it violates the mentally ill person's autonomy or imposes upon the person somebody else's notion of a good life.


5) SHOULD PERFORMANCE-ENHANCING DRUGS BE ALLOWED IN PROFESSIONAL SPORTS? At first glance, most think it's grossly unfair that some athletes use such drugs to gain an advantage over athletes who don't. And, that it is unacceptably dangerous for any athlete to use these substances. Yet, consider a few arguments in favor of viewing performance-enhancing substances as a legitimate option for pro athletes. First, it appears to be difficult or impossible to keep performance-enhancing drugs out of sports, so it seems fairer to make the drugs available to professional athletes who want them. Second, it would be much safer to let athletes dope legally and under medical supervision with a predetermined selection of substances that are known to be effective yet relatively low in risk to health.

Third, many argue that it is an artificial distinction to discriminate against performance-enhancing drugs while allowing and encouraging many of our current performance-enhancing training techniques and sports equipment. For example, most athletes wear high-tech shoes. Endurance athletes often live at high altitude or sleep in low-oxygen tents to alter their blood to carry more oxygen. Many eat special diets or carbo-load before a competition. Swimmers wear body suits that significantly reduce friction and water resistance. A few runners like Oscar Pistorius wear special blades in place of legs.

Fourth, some argue that it is an unwarranted restriction of athletes' freedom to prevent them from using performance enhancing drugs, if they're willing to take the risk. After all, most athletes already undertake substantial risks to their health merely by participating in and training for their sports (particularly in sports like football and boxing). Athletes should simply be well-informed of the costs and benefits of all aspects of their sport, including performance drugs.

Fifth, it is in one sense unfair that some athletes are born with greater genetic gifts for their sport than are other athletes. So, why not let athletes compensate for these natural differences with performance-enhancing substances, thus "leveling the playing field?"
---------------------------


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


Also, if you have a philosophical question or topic you’ve been dying to talk about, email it to me. That's how we get the topics we vote on each month.

See you there,

Brian