OK, not the most nuanced exchange, but Michael Gerson wrote an article claiming that, without God, we really don’t have what it takes (direction? motivation?) to be moral. This has been followed by Christopher Hitchens’ typically acerbic reply.
I would have thought Plato’s Euthyphro should have put this debate to rest a long time ago!
Following up some of Vince’s provocative remarks, readers may be interested in this discussion.
So our president just met with the Pope and they exchanged gifts. Here’s the account from the New York Times, with an unusual and funny mistake:
The two men, as is traditional in such visits, traded gifts. The pope presented the president with an etching of St. Peter’s Square from the 17th century and a gold papal medallion. The president gave the pope a white walking stick made by a former homeless man turned artist from Texas, covered with the 10 commandments in multiple colors.
The pope double-checked with the president what was written on the stick.
“The 10 commandments, sir,” the pope said. He did not use the normal honorific of “Your Holiness.”
(Is Bush now insisting on this honorific?)
I’ve added a new link (on the blogroll, to the right) to “Philosophy Cafe,” a good site to check regularly for short, provocative, sometimes funny bits of philosophy.
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!)
USUPhilosophy 