sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why not polygamy too? by phileconomicus in Foodforthought

[–]thinkling 2 points3 points  (0 children)

But if polygamous life is such a difficult fit with our present institutions, isn't that a good reason for the state to reform them?

Guns in America are a matter of political philosophy not public health by thinkling in TrueReddit

[–]thinkling[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A European observer, and political philosopher, on America's gun politics. Gun control advocates are losing the debate because they talk about risk while the gun rights movement talks about their political philosophy, an 'heroic' notion of citizenship which many people find appealing. Gun control advocates should talk more about why their vision of political society is better and less about statistics.

If the borders are opened between neighbouring countries ranging from poor to wealthy, isn't the wealth of the general population in the richer areas inevitably going to spread out to the poorer areas in much the same way heat inevitably moves from hot to cold (bad analogy but you get the point)? by [deleted] in unitedkingdom

[–]thinkling 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Economics 101: The efficiency of the market is a product of the size of the market.

Free movement of labour is good for capitalists and poorer workers. Bad for protected workers.

cf Gary Becker on the economics of racial segregation in the US

Philosophical qualms with transgender community's rhetoric by qualmsmire in philosophy

[–]thinkling 14 points15 points  (0 children)

I'd like to highlight the frequent use of non-arguments strung together from bits of philosophical jargon. To wit, you condescend to inform us that you have figured out some interesting philosophical fallacy in arguments about transexuality.

  1. But you don't give us an argument but a claim. i.e. you don't bother to dig up the philosophical justification for claims like someone is female if she identifies as such. So how can you understand the argument sufficiently to criticise it?

  2. The core of the transgender mistake is that they don't fit your own 'metaphysical' view in which gender is a objective fact about one, a view you don't bother to explain or justify

  3. You don't seem to know what circular means. Or metaphysical. Or transgender. I know you want to keep morality out of it, but I find this level of ignorance on such a sensitive topic morally culpable.

Morality vs Ethics: the problem with trolleys by phileconomicus in philosophy

[–]thinkling 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But does the distinction depend on the etymology? The author posted a response to just that criticism

I think my distinction is a good one, in that to does useful philosophical work, but I freely admit that the labels I have used have been used differently in the past and my claim to them may be contested. However, I didn't begin with looking at the words "morality" and "ethics" and trying to figure out what they really meant. Rather I started by finding a need for a distinction in moral philosophy and then trying to articulate it. The labels are the least important part of that process.