Skip to main content

New answers tagged

2 votes

Sacrifice an important person to save the world or sacrifice the whole world to study an important person?

In this situation, you seem to have no capacity to do right. You are either killing many or you are killing one. Neither is good. If you are directly causally responsible for the deaths in both ...
Paul Ross's user avatar
  • 5,990
0 votes

Sacrifice an important person to save the world or sacrifice the whole world to study an important person?

I mean saving that person won't be much good if the world is gone*; You'd both die very quickly (you didn't say you were immortal). *There are two interpretaions of "sacrifice the world" ...
rahul's user avatar
  • 1
1 vote

Sacrifice an important person to save the world or sacrifice the whole world to study an important person?

Whether you like it or not, the World operates in such a way that you cannot be in a position to have such a delima. And if you could be in such a position, then you wouldn't have that delima.
Ioannis Paizis's user avatar
1 vote

Sacrifice an important person to save the world or sacrifice the whole world to study an important person?

From a philosophical point of view you may answer your question in the light of the categorical imperative of Kant: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that ...
Jo Wehler's user avatar
  • 42.3k
5 votes

How strong is this logical argument (de-extinction)?

By an astonishing coincidence your perplexing question was posted just as I was participating in a seance conducted by an exceptionally gifted and sensitive medium who had engaged in conversation the ...
Professor Sushing's user avatar
3 votes
Accepted

How strong is this logical argument (de-extinction)?

The logic of the argument is strong: Extinction means "cannot be brought back". De-extinction means "brought back from extinction". Which means "brought back from where it ...
David Gudeman's user avatar
5 votes

How strong is this logical argument (de-extinction)?

Your premise is simply wrong. The definition of extinct is "no longer in existence". In the case your premise were correct, which it isn't, one could also appeal to a status quo fallacy, ...
Philomath's user avatar
  • 2,323
3 votes

How strong is this logical argument (de-extinction)?

The argument is unsound. The conclusion does not follow from the stated premise. Even assuming the premise were true ("Extinction, by definition, means "cannot be brought back"), that ...
Lowri's user avatar
  • 5,608
0 votes
Accepted

Is my death meaningless after I have died?

Any propositions about one's death will continue to have meaning under semantic theories of meaning, even after the subject has died. To the extent that meaning is meta-semantic, the particular facts ...
Lowri's user avatar
  • 5,608

Top 50 recent answers are included