Philosophical Questions

• Is anything so self-evident that it cannot be doubted? What if, as Descartes presents, a powerful demon is fooling us into perceiving a false image of reality?

• If our personal identity is defined by some notion of “psychological continuity” (i.e., defined by our mental faculties), then what matters about or past and future existence? Is a physically identical person with a perfect replica of our consciousness still “us”? To what degree?

• To what extent should we treat our own experiences as solely reflective of reality? At what point does skepticism limit our worldview and to what degree is skepticism worth the price of being wrong in many situations that do not line up with our worldview?

• Why does infidelity bother us? Is it the involvement of another person or is it turning away from the established relationship? To what extent is unfaithfulness turning away from a relationship?

• Is it wrong to deprive a living being of an existence they never knew they had? (i.e., if we had a bovine whose existence is defined by the desire to be eaten, would it be morally wrong to eat it?)

• To what degree should the natural order of things be respected?

• To what degree is the saying “If I don’t do something, someone else will with much worse consequences” a good justification for wrongdoing? To what degree should we blame someone for doing something wrong in a situation where they are “damned if they do and damned if they don’t”?

• Can an action be wrong but a person blameless?

• To what degree should “the ends justify the means”?

• The Euthyphro Dillema: “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?”

• If everything above the level of quantum mechanics is deterministic, then to what degree do we have free will? Assuming sufficient technological advancements, is it possible to accurately predict human behavior, and if it isn’t possible, why?

• Is being predictable in the deterministic sense contradictory to having free will?

• What is fairness and how can we allocate resources with fairness in mind? Is it really fair to distribute equally? Should we distribute based on “merit” or “utility” instead?

• The Ship of Theseus: Is a ship where every single part is replaced over time the same ship as the original ship? If the identity of the ship of Theseus not a factual matter, then can there be a fact about the identity of anything that gradually changes over time, human being included?

• Is there something tragic about a work of art which doesn’t persist over time? Is the deterioration of an artwork also a part of the performative aspect of the artform? Is the value in art found in preserving it for as long as possible or in experiencing it in the moment?

• If the mental is irreducible to the physical because the former is subjective and the latter objective, how can it be true both that there is nothing in the world apart from physical stuff, and yet the same time, that there are mental events that cannot be explained in physical terms?

• To what degree can you justify a crime such that you should not feel “guilty” over it?

• The question of supererogatory behavior — doing something good which goes beyond what is demanded by morality. Are such acts heroic or simply what morality requires? Are we moral failures for not doing such acts even if we won’t be blamed for not doing it? What degree of personal sacrifice is acceptable if at all?

• Is torture morally justifiable in the case that it could save more lives? Or is it crossing a line that should not be crossed in the name of human rights? In general, what circumstances, if any, permit us to break moral boundaries and why?

• If rationality does not imply goodness, then how can we be certain we are being perfectly rational? Or is rationality aligned with goodness and any form of rationalization for an immoral action not sound? How can we be certain if so? How can we be certain that it is a problem of the premise of doing the immoral action itself that is irrational and not the argument used to justify it?

• The Allegory of the Cave: In particular, how do we distinguish between deluded fools who have mad worldviews and those who have genuinely discovered an unseen dimension of life that has eluded us? When should we doubt claims about reality?

• Is immortality a blessing or a curse? Is life meaningful because we live it or because we inevitably die? However much life we have, it never seems quite enough. Yet we are not so hungry that we make full use of the time we do have. And if we had endless time, the concept of ‘making full use’ would become meaningless.

• Is epiphenomenalism true? — the belief that mental events do not cause anything in the physical world, including our actions. Assuming it is true, how would it work in practice? Would life operate in the same way assuming it were false?

• Do the haves have a moral obligation to help the have-nots? Are we obligated to distribute our surplus — is it valid to say that we are only keeping what is rightfully ours? Why does it seem immoral?

• Do words inherently refer to anything? If they don’t, what do they mean? If we can simply refer to anything as “X” (some word), then what does “X” actually mean? How do we know that two people have the same picture on what “X” means? Or is “X” simply inherently meaningless because it refers to something too abstract?

• Is faith in God in line with reason? If so, what makes arguments that faith is irrational, themselves irrational? If not, and faith has nothing to do with reason, then what becomes the merit for belief?

• What does it mean “to suffer”? How morally bad is pain, and why is it morally bad? Is it the memory and anticipation of pain that constitutes suffering, and if so, does removing any of this permit actions that we would otherwise label as immoral for causing “suffering”?

• At what point can we say we have discharged our moral responsibilities? How do the agents, actions and consequences of the moral decision play into this?

• If we can dream we have woken up, how do we know when we have really woken up? Indeed, how do we know we have ever really woken up? Is it possible that the past that we recall is constructed rather than reconstructed?

• What morally permits abortion? If the circumstances leading up to the pregnancy are accidental, is it morally permissible? Why or why not?

• The question of quasi-memories — recollecting something that we have not actually experienced, and psychological reductionism — the idea that our identity is tied to the continuation of our stream of consciousness. If we are in a sense composed of our memories, what happens to our self when our memories become confused, fade, or trick us (i.e., via dementia)?

• What is the extent of the validity of the premise of evolutionary psychology — that every aspect of human behavior can be explained as a byproduct of evolutionary processes? How do we know such explanations and the predictions they generate are valid? How much can be explained by evolution? Are there better ways to explain our behavior?

• What counts as artificial intelligence? What separates humans from AI? How could we determine that AI actually has intelligence rather than merely simulating it? In general, then, how do we know the minds of others are real or merely simulated?

• What is free speech? If free speech is to allow anyone to say whatever they want, to whomever and whenever they want, then how do we handle the negative effects harmful language can bring? Where do we make the distinction between allowing absolute freedom of speech and censorship?

• Is it permissible to shift responsibility to others when we defer to them for our advice? Where do we draw the line when their advice leads us to do something immoral? How much moral responsibility do we have in such a situation?

• Why are acts of terrors and war crimes reprehensible? Why do people resort to these acts and why do those reasons not justify their actions?

• What is the case for or against pre-emptive justice — punishing someone for a crime we know they would commit, before they commit it? Would such a scheme actually work in practice assuming the prediction works perfectly? Would such a prediction even be possible or does free will factor in?

• How separate is art from the artist? How far can this boundary go? Is an appreciation for art tied to the fact that it is made by a human? Why should / shouldn’t it matter if an artform was not made by a human?

• What constitutes art? If such a definition is based on the experience of the viewer, then would that not mean “art” is meaningless? What distinguishes art and non-art?

• Are we nothing but our brains or something more?

• Is the functionalist view of the mind — that it is defined by being able to perform cognitive actions, valid? If our individual neurons cannot perform these cognitive actions that a mind can perform, then where does the mind exist? How can we know something has a mind?

• What differentiates having knowledge from having the correct belief? What kind of justification do we need to say that a correct belief is true knowledge? If the source of our correct beliefs is itself mysterious and beyond our ability to explain, then how do we say it is “knowledge” ? Is any source of knowledge truly reliable?

• How important is experience for learning? Can we imagine something totally beyond our experience? If we can, is it because of some innate human ability to know that something or to imagine anything? What are the limits to what we can imagine and know as experience?

• Is it possible to know the future? What of free will?

• What gives us the right to make binding decisions on behalf of our future self? Are such promises morally binding, especially when we change and our future selves may not be the same as our present selves?

• What is the difference between believing in a God who leaves no trace and does not interfere with the universe, from believing that there is no God at all?

• If we split our consciousness (i.e., left brain and right brain), are we still alive or dead? Which part of our consciousness would constitute “us”? If our existence is a matter of something continuing, what is this “something” (i.e., our body, mind, soul, etc)?

• If the meaning of words is dependent on context (i.e., not solely dependent on the word in isolation), then what does it mean for a statement to be true? If words are labels for ideas and the meaning of words is dependent on language, then does that mean truth is relative to the culture?

• At what point can we separate the aesthetics of an artform from its ethical message? Is art independent from morality and thus neither ‘right” nor “wrong”? Or is art that is morally repugnant a failure of aesthetics to reflect the beauty of the world?

• When does it become morally justifiable to bend laws? Moral rules? What if there is a clear utilitarian benefit to bending these rules?

• What if reality were simply a simulation? How should we respond to such knowledge? Do we actually live in one?

• Among the following which is more desirable: To increase the number of worthwhile lives; To increase the total “quality of life”; To create the conditions for the most worthwhile forms of life as possible? If the first, is it really a good idea to bring so many people to this world? If the second, what defines quality of life? If the third, why, then, should we value procreation and especially unborn life over our own?

• Where is the fine line between euthanasia (to put someone’s pain at ease) and murder? Should there be a “right to death”, where people can be euthanized if they request it, assuming they are of sound mind?

• What are the implications of following the law of double effect — that it is morally acceptable to do something in order to bring about a good, even if you can foresee that it will also bring bad? Where are we morally responsible — what we foresee or what we intend? Under the principle of double effect, what rules out reckless behavior and accidental crimes?

• Where does the self reside? Does the self even exist? What is “self”? If we only have an awareness for our experiences, then what does that imply about our sense of self and our existence?

• How should we respond to the environmental threats we face today? Could the solutions we consider simply deprive the future generations of economic boons and is this trade-off worth it compared to destroying the environment?

• How do we measure the significance of our lives in this world? Does any such measure hold weight?

• Why are certain types of meat seen as repulsive? Would it be morally acceptable to eat an animal pet? How would such reasoning hold in circumstances where it would be a waste not to do so? How about in circumstances where our survival depended on it? What should our relationships with animals look like?

• Why are certain taboos seen as such? Do these views hold any weight?

• If God instructed us to do some action that would otherwise be considered immoral, should we do this action nonetheless? How would we know that it were God commanding us to do such things, especially given his omnibenevolent nature? Should faith factor into this?

• If you could view the world through other people’s eyes, what would you see? In the absence of such a mechanism, how would we know that we sense the world in the same way as others? How would that factor into the way we use language and assign meanings to words?

• What is the moral validity of the statement — ‘Do as I say, not as I do?’ How should we morally judge hypocrisy? What if what is said would ,on its own, be morally good?

• What separates what is commonly accepted as scientific fact from what would be considered conspiracy theories? If evidence doesn’t necessarily prove a theory, why should we believe one over the other?

• If knowing requires us to believe something to be true with sufficient reason (i.e., ruling out being coincidentally right), then what kind of justification would be enough to assert we “know” something? How do we reconcile this with the fact that most things we know do not have sufficient justification for their belief?

• Should we break the law in the name of moral duty? Under what circumstances should we do so? How would uncertainty influence this decision?

• What would be the implications if our souls were able to be reincarnated? Would the basis of our identity be this soul? Does such a thing actually survive after death even if reincarnation is real, or is it merely copied?

• What makes forgery and deceit morally wrong? Under what circumstances can it be morally right?

• Is there value in forged things? In “forged” art? Should art be judged on its own merits or does the artist matter?

• What of the ethics of multiculturalism? What if we consider that cultures can only be appreciated if they remain the same, which goes against the other goal of multiculturalism to transcend cultures?

• What should we do about the issue of cultural diversity — where to encourage diversity, we require distinctions between cultures, where by our identity, we are forced to recognize other beliefs as invalid lest we compromise on our existing identity, or we must homogenize all cultures as one which diminishes diversity overall?

• How should subjective experiences relate to our objective knowledge (i.e., how should we identify “pain”)? Why should both be related (i.e., why should subjective pain require an objective symptom of pain?)

• How should we react to eternal recurrence — that we are fated to live our lives exactly the same way again and again? How should our reaction inform how we approach life?

• There is clearly a difference between killing and letting die, but is this difference always morally significant? If in both cases the death was intended and the result of a deliberate decision, aren’t the people who made the decision equally culpable?

• When it comes to rights, what matters more — that they are people or that they are human (i.e., apply this reasoning to clones, AI, or newly evolved species)? How should we respond to the question of speciesism with regards to rights?

• The Mind Body Problem — how does something as physical as a brain give rise to the subjective experiences of the mind? How do we explain the mind? Is the mind even physical?

• Where does the meaning (Semantics) of a word come from? Is meaning in the head or does it externally exist in the world?

• How fair is it to judge someone by how they would act when confronted by more temptation than most people could resist? Would humans actually give in to the temptation or not and under what circumstances? How would we act in the face of such temptations and what does it say about our moral system?

• How do we distinguish between things that we believe are wrong and things that we do not do simply because of factors other than morality (cowardice or adherence to social conventions)? What does this say about our moral system?

• From an epistemological perspective, what distinguishes between accessing information stored in the brain and accessing information stored elsewhere but directly connected to it? What role does remembered facts play in intelligence and wisdom? Is such a thing merely recall or actual intelligence?

• How can we decide when to break the law in the name of morality?

• Pascal’s Wager — It is better to believe in God, for if he exists then faith shall be rewarded and doubt severely punished, and if he does not then there is no gain or loss. How do we reconcile with this argument? How would this argument hold in the face of many religions?

• Is it morally justifiable to brainwash people so that they behave more morally? How do we reconcile this with the use of therapy and reform? How does respecting personal dignity and freedom factor into this?

• The morality of generosity and philanthropy — which is more moral, to give with one’s heart (i.e., based on feeling) or to give with one’s head (i.e., based on the rational course of action no matter how cold)? Which is more important when casting moral judgment on an action — what one thinks or what one feels?

• If a tree falls in a deserted forest, does it make a sound? That is, does a stimulus or sensation necessitate the existence of a sensor? If not, then how do we make sense of the possibility that there are sense experiences that might be absurd to us (i.e., tasting a color)?

• How do we morally evaluate freeloading — is it morally right or wrong and to what extent is it right or wrong? Does the conclusion change if we are freeloading off of someone else’s surplus? If it is morally incorrect then who is the victim in such a case? What distinguishes freeloading from mutual cooperation?

• How do we interpret any moral principle — in particular, how do we balance adherence to this principle with the need to be sensitive to the circumstances of each situation?

• Which is more important — physical pleasures (i.e., food, entertainment, sensual pleasures) or intellectual pleasures (i.e., art and music)? What makes one superior over the other? What defines such “intellectual pleasures”?

• is the value (i.e., point of existence) of art intrinsic to the artwork itself, or does the value lie with the beholder, that is, would the value of art go down if no one saw it?

• When is inequality acceptable? Is it permissible when it is to the benefits of the least well off? Should equality and inequality only be seen in materialistic terms or should we also consider the psychological dimension (i.e., the effects of perceived wealth gaps)?

• If we override A’s identity with B, where B has false memories of the past, then which is the real person? Would this conclusion change if B had also experienced real (non-fictitious things)?

• The Trolley Problem: Is it worse to kill people than to simply let them die? What if one results in the death of more people over the other, which should we choose? Which bears greater moral responsibility?

• If killing someone can be equated to letting them die , then what of the case of killing to ease someone’s suffering rather than letting them die a painful death? Are we morally responsible for the deaths of the poor that we do not help?

• If appearances of reality, as it seems to our senses, are not necessarily reality, then what is? What is the difference between the world of appearances and the world of reality? If empirical approaches (i.e., science) is founded on studying such appearances, then do we accept that we cannot understand the world of reality? Do we accept that we do not live in the world of reality but appearances?

• If someone trusts you, what is lost if you betray that trust? If it does not hurt anyone physically, what’s the harm done by betrayal?

• Should the morality of our actions be dependent solely on the consequences and how it maximizes happiness or minimizes misery?

• Should AI govern us? How much faith should we put in technology? Can a computer be developed to make moral judgments?

• How would one tell apart philosophical zombies from the rest — that is, entities with no minds but act like they do? How would we know they have no minds? How can we be certain that we do? Why should we think physical similarities to us imply mental similarities too?

• The Sorites Paradox: A single grain of sand from a heap of sand does not change it into something that is not a heap. Thus, repeatedly removing a grain of sand does not change it into something that is not a heap. Thus, eventually, a single grain of sand is a heap. The paradox is that if true, it is absurd that a grain of sand is a heap. If false, it is absurd that a single grain of sand makes a difference.

• The Problem of Evil: If God is omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent then why is there evil in the world, for if evil exists, then God must be ignorant, not all loving, impotent, or non-existent? Could God have made a world where there is less suffering but where we still had opportunities to exercise our free will and “grow morally”? If he couldn’t then for what reason does suffering exist? If our minds cannot grasp such a reason, then can we reconcile rationality with faith? Can we rationalize our suffering?

• In the face of a moral dilemma, do we prioritize that of our kin and close relationships or complete strangers? What tips the scale for one or the other and under what justification? Is such a thing fair?

• Does luck play no role in ethics and casting moral judgment? What of the role of genes and other circumstances completely outside of our control? What of the role of chance where a bad outcome is brought about as a combination of our (in)action and luck?

• Should we favor a harsh reality or a pleasant life-like simulation? Why should we favor one or the other? Does this conclusion change when we consider reality to simply be the sum of appearances or that we may already be in a simulation?

• Should a country go to war and stop another from committing atrocities or stay out of it and maintain the peace? What justifies military intervention? What if we consider that intervention can make things worse? What if we consider uncertainty?

• What is the morality of using goods that were made under capitalistic exploitation in the name of low prices? Does this not make us complicit in exploitation?

Links §

• The Pig That Wants to be Eaten and Ninety-Nine Other Thought Experiments by Baggini