What we’re about
PHILOSOPHY is the theme at this friendly, monthly discussion group. In a circle, we discuss and debate the philosophical question we selected by an email vote among five questions submitted by participants. We discuss and debate all areas of philosophy (as well as the philosophical aspects of the great issues of the day).
If you want to meet like-minded people for a good, impassioned yet rational and respectful conversation, free of insults and ad hominem attacks, then join us!
Upcoming events
1
•OnlineThe Santa Monica Philosophy Meetup – Sunday Nov. 2 – vote now for the topic!
OnlineHey People,
We're voting now for this Sunday’s meeting's topic – message me, email me (angelonapinhead@gmail.com), or post a comment with the topic(s) you most want to talk about! I’ll post an update with the winning topic in a couple of days.
The monthly Meetup is this Sunday, November 2 at 5 PM; we’ll meet on Zoom this time.
ALERT! Daylight saving time ends this Sunday, November, Nov. 2, so don’t forget to set your clocks back by one hour, or you’ll Zoom in at the wrong time!
Here are the topics to choose from:
1) WHO OWNS THE BONES? What do you do when you find ancient, buried bones that are claimed as sacred by some people and as objects of scientific interest by others? Are the bones rightly owned by their descendants? Should the bones remain buried, to show respect for the ancestors and descendants? Or, should the bones be studied for their scientific value?
2) VAGUENESS, AMBIGUITY AND GENERALITY. What is "vagueness" and what are the different kinds of vagueness? What's the difference between a vague idea and an ambiguous idea? What's the difference between a vague idea and a general or broad idea? Is all vagueness linguistic/conceptual or do some kinds of vagueness exist in the world? Can objects or events be vague? Can experiences be vague?
3) FREE SPEECH, HATE SPEECH, INCITEMENT TO VIOLENCE, AND MISINFORMATION: should political speech include the freedom to spread misinformation, engage in hate speech, or incite violence? Should we place legal restrictions on spreading misinformation or disinformation? Should we place legal restrictions on hate speech? Should we place legal restrictions on the incitement to violence? Who could we trust to enforce these kinds of laws?
4) DO PHYSICAL OR COGNITIVE DISABILITIES NECESSARILY REDUCE YOUR HEALTH OR WELL-BEING? Though many find it counterintuitive, philosophers are calling into question three common and closely related assumptions about disabilities. One assumption being challenged is "the widely-held view that it is desirable to prevent, correct, or mitigate disabilities, and generally undesirable to acquire one" (as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy puts it). A second assumption being challenged is the idea that being disabled means being unhealthy. A third assumption being challenged is the belief that having a disability entails a decrease in wellbeing. What do you think of these three challenges? Is disability necessarily undesirable? Are disabled people necessarily unhealthy? Does disability necessarily decrease the quality of life?
5) HUMAN/NON-HUMAN CHIMERAS: should society limit scientific research on human-animal hybrids? What would justify these limitations? The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on "Human/Non-Human Chimeras" goes over the five main arguments against human-animal mixtures, as well as objections to those arguments. The following is from the opening of the article:
"The Unnaturalness Argument explores the ethics of violating natural species boundaries. The Moral Confusion Argument alleges that the existence of entities that cannot be definitively classified as either human or non-human will cause moral confusion that will undermine valuable social and cultural practices. The Borderline-Personhood Argument focuses on great apes and concludes that their borderline-personhood confers a high enough degree of moral status to make most, if not all, chimeric research on them impermissible. The Human Dignity Argument claims that it is an affront to human dignity to give an individual “trapped” in the body of a non-human animal the capacities associated with human dignity. Finally, the Moral Status Framework maintains that research in which a non-human animal's moral status is enhanced to that of a normal adult human is impermissible unless reasonable assurances are in place that its new moral status will be respected, which is unlikely given the motivations for chimeric research and the oversight likely to be provided."
-----------2 attendees
Past events
235
