Should people with a mental illness be helped to die if that is what they wish? When thinking about assisted suicide, should we distinguish between severe mental and physical health conditions? Or would expanding assisted suicide to mental health conditions simply provide an “out” to tough situations?
Christopher Nolan’s Dunkirk portrays ordinary people acting under tremendous fear. Some are glorious, some are mean-spirited, some are anxious, and many are patient. But the lesson to be drawn from this movie is that it is not particular individuals alone but practical solidarity that matters “to outlive the menace of tyranny,” in Winston Churchill’s words.
In “Death and the Midlife Crisis” psychoanalyst Elliot Jacques found that his patients were flourishing but had a sense of malaise and meaninglessness associated with death. Philosopher Kieran Setiya thinks that the answer to the midlife crisis is to pursue activities that do not necessarily have a particular end point.
Robotic yet eerily human-like, sex robots and their proliferation will promise a new revolution in sex. But what are the benefits of this technology and its potential ethical risks? For example, could it mitigate sexual assault? Or might it simply legitimate it?
In a recent speech, Trump painted a picture of humanoid predatory animals hell-bent on torturing, killing, and raping beautiful, innocent teenage girls. Trump’s speech should not be regarded as the return of the superpredator idea, because the idea that young Black and Latino males are roving, predatory beasts never really disappeared.
Will driverless technology someday make human drivers obsolete? Would you be willing to trust your safety to an algorithm? What if you knew that the algorithm might decide to sacrifice your life to save the lives of others?
Driverless cars make decisions based on speed, weather, road conditions, and distance. Does that mean that the main challenge for these autonomous vehicles is technical? Or are there also real ethical problems facing this new technology?
Why would anyone believe that the symptoms typically associated with AIDS are the product of supernatural practices like sorcery, when a perfectly good and comprehensive scientific explanation of HIV/AIDS is available?
In a recent interview, the controversial philosopher Peter Singer states that “Philosophy always causes offense—perhaps it should cause offense.” But not everyone agrees that offensive philosophical views are necessarily a good thing, especially when reasonable critiques are ignored.
We modern humans read all sorts of things and for all sorts of reasons. Sometimes reading a densely packed text takes a lot of skill and effort. But mastering the ancient art of reading can help us to master the even more difficult art of reading the text that is the world.
We are now more aware of the frighteningly near future of overpopulation and limited world resources. Yet 50% of all pregnancies are unplanned. Is there an ethical solution to the overpopulation crisis, one that doesn’t violate anyone’s reproductive rights?
Whereas science has accumulated an enormous wealth of knowledge about the world, philosophy hasn’t produced conclusive answers to questions posed thousands of years ago. What’s the reason for this difference? Could it be that philosophy is just harder than science?
How is the internet changing the nature of friendships? Does social media strengthen friendships or make them more shallow? And can liking a friend’s status or commenting on their Instagram meaningfully bolster your interactions with them in person?
Transhumanists seek to use science and technology to improve the human condition and conquer mortality. But is extending life indefinitely a way to promote human flourishing? Or would it just render life meaningless?
Aristotle defined humans as the rational animal. But he was wrong! The human mind is riddled with cognitive biases. At last count, there are something like 150 named cognitive biases – confirmation bias, in group bias, loss aversion, the Ikea effect, the halo effect, endowment effects.
The Simpsons may not seem like a legitimate source for philosophical discourse and ideas. But the University of Glasgow just launched a successful one-day course entitled “D’oh! The Simpsons Introduce Philosophy” as an introduction to the world’s most eminent philosophical thinkers.