A very interesting discussion came up among philosophers last night. Someone suggested what seems to be a lack of faith among the religious at funerals. On the one hand, the faithful believe that death is a birth into a better world, and the separation is only temporary. On the other, everybody is crying their eyes out as if they believe they will never again see the departed. What gives here?
Category: Actual philosophical discussion!
Forgiving dumbsh*t decisions
I make many dumbsh*t decisions, by which I mean decisions that are made without taking obviously important and relevant information or moral considerations into account. And I’m not alone: we are all guilty of this. I believe we are morally responsible for these decisions, and blameworthy for them. But I also believe that many or most of them should be forgiven.
So, for example, when I make the dumbsh*t decision not to offer you a ride home (when it’s obvious that you need one) I should be able to say to you, “I’m sorry I didn’t offer you a ride home; I can’t even explain why I didn’t, other than it was just a dumbsh*t decision on my part,” and you should probably reply, “That’s okay, but please try to be kinder next time.”
But they should not always be forgiven. If a doctor told me, “I’m sorry I didn’t try to save your leg; I can’t even explain why I didn’t, other than it was just a dumbsh*t decision on my part,” I wouldn’t forgive her, and don’t believe she should be forgiven.
So my question: what are the conditions for a dumbsh*t decision to be worthy of forgiveness?
Here are some that come to mind: (a) the consequences must be fairly trivial, (b) the person shouldn’t repeat the dumbsh*t decision more than a very few times, (c) all the other conditions that should apply to making a bad decision forgivable — like, the person’s apology must be genuine, etc.
Can anyone think of other conditions, or exceptions to these? Or can anyone come up with a general explanation for why we find some but not all dumbsh*t decisions forgivable? (Or just call them “dumb” decisions, if you prefer, and forgive my choice of terminology!)
Online philosophy conference
The second online philosophy conference is now available here. You may want to explore it just to see the sorts of things professional philosophers are talking and writing about these days. The keynote address, by Jeff McMahon, is about pacifism and philosophical issues related to war — timely topic! — and is available in a video format.
Fearing death
Here is an interesting essay on Epicurus, and whether it is reasonable to fear death. It’s on the “Florida Student Philosophy Blog.”
Literature and philosophy
Some of our students (and I as well!) are interested in both philosophy and literature. I’m curious about what sort of relation (if any) people see between the two. Are there some ideas/feelings/perspectives that are best expressed through literature? Are they incapable of being expressed in philosophy — or is philosophy at best clumsy when dealing with them? Or are the two equally good but different ways of getting at the deeper elements of human experience? Or is philosophy hard, and literature a pleasant relief? Or….?
USUPhilosophy 