The Cookie Paradox

A friend of mine from graduate school, Dylan Dodd, discusses a new paradox (and how it relates to a similar paradox called the "Surprise Exam" paradox) in one of his new papers. You can find it at this link. Here's an abstract of his paper:

We've all been at parties where there's one cookie left on what was once a plate full of cookies, a cookie no one will eat simply because everyone is following a rule of etiquette, according to which you're not supposed to eat the last cookie. Or at least we think everyone is following this rule, but maybe not. In this paper I present a new paradox, the Cookie Paradox, which is an argument that seems to prove that in any situation in which everyone is truly following the rule, no one eats any cookies at all, no matter how many there are to be eaten. The `Cookie Argument' resemblance the more familiar argument that surprise exams are impossible, but it's not exactly the same. I argue that ultimately the biggest di difference is that, while every argument against the possibility of surprise exams (I discuss three) contains a subtle mistake, the Cookie Argument is actually sound! In addition to presenting this new paradox, I also present a new solution to a particularly difficult version of the Surprise Exam Paradox, the Conditionalized Exam Paradox.

Divine Attributes

I'm about to start teaching a philosophy of religion course. Although such courses tend to focus on the question of whether God exists, mine will deal with "divine attributes" or properties that are typically ascribed to God/divine beings.  We'll consider properties like omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, immaterial and eternal.  I'm hoping readers of this blog will suggest other properties--perhaps ones that are less commonly discussed by philosophers--for us to consider in my class.  I'm also hoping to get suggestions about texts that we could use.  Thanks!

The Fracking Debate

We're discussing environmental ethics in my class this week.  One issue that I find fascinating (and to be a good model for how to think about other environmental issues) has to do with hydraulic fracturing ("fracking"). It's difficult to find reliable, unbiased material online dealing with the environmental/moral issues related to fracking.  Here is a song critical of the drilling process.  And here's the trailer for Gassland, a documentary/film from 2010 that is similarly critical of fracking. Of course, there are those that contend that fracking isn't so problematic. For example, see this interview on reason.tv. What do you think about fracking?  Is this a morally acceptable way to extract natural gas?  What argument(s) do you find most compelling?

Food Ethics

We'll be discussing some moral issues related to food in my class this week.  A plethora of fantastic books and articles have been written over the last few decades wrestling with such issues.  Michael Pollan is a famous author/journalism professor worth checking out.  Among other things, he wrote Omnivore's Dilemma and  In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto. He's written a number of interesting pieces for the NY Times.  Here's one on eating animals. Students in my class should read this article, since we'll be discussing these issues later this week.

Speaking of the NY Times, Mark Bittman (who had a food/recipe column for a long time called "Minimalist") gave a TED Talk which I think is simply fantastic. His talk is on what's wrong with the way we eat (and his claim is that we eat too much meat, too few plants, too much fast food, and too little home-cooking).  He contends that what we eat is putting the entire planet at dire risk.  What do you think about Bittman's arguments?  Are you persuaded?

Louis CK On Our Obligations to Others

We chatted yesterday in my class about how much we might owe others--especially those suffering from famine and lack of medical resources, education, etc.  I mentioned that Loius CK makes an argument that resembles some of the arguments we considered in class.  Here's the relevant clip.

Do you think he's right in claiming that it's evil--and we should interpret this as "it's not morally permissible"--for him to continue driving his Infinity?  That is, that he's obligated to sell it and donate the proceeds to those that are in dire need? If so, what implications does this have regarding your life? Are there things that you have or services you enjoy (e.g., expensive shoes, Netflix, etc.) that you should really do without so that you can help those in dire need?

Measuring Well-Being and Utilitarianism

We discussed a number of interesting issues today in class.  One set of issues has to do with the difficulty of measuring well-being and how this might make for trouble for utilitarianism.  What do you think is the strongest way of putting this problem?  Is there an example that helps illustrate this problem (e.g., from Russ Shafer-Landau's book or from our discussion in class)?  How serious do you think this problem is for the utilitarian?  Comments related to these questions are most welcome.

Libertarianism

We had a brief discussion about libertarianism in class yesterday as part of our discussion of ethical egoism.  I thought some of my students would find this article of interest.  It's from New York Magazine and it's entitled "The Trouble With Liberty."  There are a number of other fantastic resources on the web (both in support of and against) libertarianism.  Probably the most philosophically rigorous is the entry on the topic in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Why Should We Care About Psychological Egoism?

Psychological Egoism is the theory that all human actions are aimed at avoiding some personal loss or gaining some personal benefit.  I've found it surprising that so many philosophy textbooks for ethics courses have a chapter or two devoted to this theory, since it's merely a descriptive/psychological theory and not an ethical theory.  Even if it were true, why should ethicists really care?  Russ Shafer-Landau presents an interesting argument for why we should:

(1) If psychological egoism is true, then we can't be altruistic.
(2) If we can't be altruistic, then it can't be our duty to be altruistic.
(3) Therefore, if psychological egoism is true, then it can't be our duty to be altruistic.
(4) Psychological egoism is true.
(5) Therefore, it can't be our duty to be altruistic.

As Shafer-Landau suggests, the upshot of this argument is that "most of what we take for granted about the ethical life would turn out to be mistaken" if psychological egoism is true. So maybe I've been hasty in thinking that ethicists shouldn't concern themselves with this theory.  I'm curious what readers of this blog think about psychological egoism (generally speaking) and about the argument above (more specifically).

Autonomy and Hedonism

Shafer-Landau considers a number of arguments against hedonism (the view that happiness or pleasure is the only intrinsic good) in the second chapter of the book I'm using for my introductory ethics class. Here's one of these arguments:

The Importance of Autonomy Argument

(1) If hedonism is true, then autonomy contributes to a good life only insofar as it makes us happy.

(2) Autonomy sometimes directly contributes to a good life, even when it fails to make us happy. 

(3) Therefore, hedonism is false.

The argument is clearly valid, but are the premises true.  I'm mainly concerned with (2) (since (1), as Shafer-Landau suggests, is difficult to deny).  Do you think that autonomy contributes to a good life--that is, it makes one's life go better--even when it fails to make that person happy?  Why might someone reject this claim?