Wednesday, December 04, 2019

Would you give up the rule of law to end abortion?

By the way, those looking to Trump to save us from abortion, are you willing to give up on the rule of law to save the unborn? If the only way to stop abortion was to set up a right-wing dictatorship and shut down the Constitution and the electoral process, would you be willing to go that far? If you had to choose between making abortion illegal but putting an end to our system of government, or allowing the right to choose abortion but allowing our electoral process, which would you choose?

Pope Francis warns of a "culture of hate" which reminds him of the rise of Hitler.


Tuesday, November 26, 2019

Kant on lies

 Kant holds a strict position on lying, maintaining that it is always wrong even in the most plausible of cases, such as when you are confronted by a homicidally minded person concerning the whereabouts of someone you are hiding. If you apply the Categorical Imperative, can you come up with an alternative view of lies in which some lies might be justified? 

Here is an attempt.

Can you use natural law to oppose homosexuality, but not use natural law to oppose contraception?

Here is a simple question. Can you accept the natural law argument against homosexuality, explained here, without also accepting the natural law argument against contraception. The former argument is popular even amongst Protestants and Catholics who are not strict adherents of Humanae Vitae. But the anti-gay argument and the case for Humanae Vitae are structurally very similar. So the natural law argument looks like a package deal to me.

Monday, October 21, 2019

My debates on SB 1070

It's remarkable how current the debate concerning SB 1070 nine years ago is. I posted on that issue quite often. Here. 

Thursday, October 17, 2019

Gay Marriage and the Tax Exempt Status of Churches

Beto's O'Rourke's kind of political correctness (wanting to take tax exempt status away from churches who take a stance against gay marriage) is going to hurt the Democrats badly if it takes over. It doesn't really respect equal rights, if you insist that gay people are "being who they are," then religious people who find homosexual conduct morally unacceptable are being who they are, and you can't end one kind of discrimination by supporting another. Having an opinion and expressing it does not deprive anyone of their rights.

Tuesday, September 10, 2019

Stealing and murder

Here is an interesting ethical question. Suppose Smith knows for sure that if he steals $1.000,000, Jones will not murder Williams. But if he does not steal $1,000,000, then Jones will not murder Williams. If he steals, of course he's a thief, but if he doesn't steal, does that mean he's an accessory before the fact to murder? See what trouble you get into when you ask questions like this to a philosopher?