Vote now for the topic! The Philosophy Now Meetup, Sunday Sept. 27 on Zoom
Details
Hey People!
Our monthly Meetup is on zoom this month: Sunday, September 27 at 5 PM PT.
We're also voting now for the topic for this meeting – message me, email me ([angelonapinhead@gmail.com](mailto: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 few days.
Here are the topics to vote on, for this month's Meetup:
1) IS IT WRONG TO DO MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS ON ANIMALS (for the benefit of human medical research)? Or, is it permissible, or even obligatory? What justifies animal experimentation and what justifies restricting it? What are the arguments involved?
2) ARE PEOPLE ESSENTIALLY GOOD OR BAD? Or is human nature in between good and bad, or a mix of good and bad, or is it something outside of the good/bad continuum? And, in what specific ways is human nature good, bad or otherwise? What is meant by the terms "good" and "bad" in the context of human nature? Do you have any insights about the good or bad in humans that most people don't recognize?
3) ANARCHY: is anarchy (AKA anarchism) a viable way to set up a society? What are the advantages and disadvantages of anarchy? Wikipedia defines anarchy as, “a form of society without rulers. As a type of stateless society, it is commonly contrasted with states, which are centralized polities that claim a monopoly on violence over a permanent territory. Beyond a lack of government, it can more precisely refer to societies that lack any form of authority or hierarchy.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Anarchism puts it this way, “Anarchism is a political theory that is skeptical of the justification of authority and power. Anarchism is usually grounded in moral claims about the importance of individual liberty, often conceived as freedom from domination. Anarchists also offer a positive theory of human flourishing, based upon an ideal of equality, community, and non-coercive consensus building.”
4) HELL: THE ETHICS AND PURPOSE OF HELL – AND INVENTED VERSIONS OF HELL. Regardless of whether you believe in God(s) or supernatural beings, try out this thought experiment. If you were to design your own version of Hell, what would it be? What would its goals and purposes be? How would you design it for maximum effectiveness? What lessons, if any, would you want to teach the denizens of your hell? Would you keep them there forever, or for a limited time? If your hell is not eternal, what exit criteria would you have for its denizens?
Is it ethical or unethical for a supernatural being to send humans to Hell? Would your answer change if we're not talking about a standard version of Hell, but your own, invented version of Hell? Would your answer change if we're talking about people being uploaded into a virtual Hell invented by humans instead of by a supernatural being?
5) PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE (VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA). Is it ethically acceptable for the terminally ill to take their own life (or to elicit help in doing so)? What are the arguments, pro and con? If it is acceptable, under what circumstances? And, would it be permissible to encourage assisted suicide?
Second, does it make a difference if the patient has a brain illness, such as dementia, instead of a disease we usually associate with assisted dying, such as cancer? For example, should Alzheimer’s sufferers be eligible for assisted suicide, if they make that choice prior to becoming mentally incapable of doing so? What about treatment-resistant, severe clinical depression?
These are not mere academic questions. Currently, 13 states in the U.S. and at least 10 countries including Canada have some form of medical aid in dying laws – and more countries are considering it. In the U.S., laws authorize assisted dying (self-administered), which is distinct from active euthanasia (where a physician directly administers the medication), which is illegal throughout the U.S. Some countries allow active euthanasia. In five countries, there is no terminal illness requirement, but the patient's suffering must be unbearable, non-alleviable, and medically documented. Do these distinctions make an ethical difference?
----------------
Send in a vote for your favorite topic(s) now!