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)
See all- The Santa Monica Philosophy Meetup – Sunday July 27 – vote now for the topic!Link visible for attendees
Hey 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, July 27 at 5 PM; we’ll meet on Zoom this month.
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) WHAT IS HEALTH AND WHAT IS DISEASE? Can we objectively define health, disease, and related terms, like “normal functioning” and disability? Are explanations about the purpose of the body, or the purpose of its organs and tissues, necessary to make sense of the concepts of health, disease, normality, or disability? Can (and should) such definitions be value-neutral, or are they unavoidably laden with value judgments and cultural biases, and incapable of being defined solely in objective terms?
4) WHAT IS EVIL? Is there such a thing as evil? Is evil a useful concept or is it an outdated moral term? Is evil just another word for very immoral, ethically wrong, or selfish? Or is there something more to it? Whichever way you define evil, what is its source? Is it due to someone being "sick in the head?" Is evil due to ignorance? Or are there other roots of evil? Note that these questions do not assume that evil is a metaphysical or supernatural force. A secular notion of evil might be viable.
Further questions: do "evil" people generally think of themselves as being evil or doing evil? Or, do people who do evil think of themselves similarly to how most people do, that is, as decent people who, on those occasions when they must do harmful or immoral actions, feel justified in doing so, or feel that they made an understandable mistake that nearly anyone could make?
Could almost any of us become evil if we were put in dire situations? What circumstances do you think would cause you to do evil, however you define evil?
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."
-----------
