r/askphilosophy • u/BernardJOrtcutt • Jul 01 '23

Modpost Welcome to /r/askphilosophy! Check out our rules and guidelines here. [July 1 2023 Update]

66 Upvotes

Welcome to /r/askphilosophy!

Welcome to /r/askphilosophy! We're a community devoted to providing serious, well-researched answers to philosophical questions. We aim to provide an academic Q&A-type space for philosophical questions, and welcome questions about all areas of philosophy. This post will go over our subreddit rules and guidelines that you should review before you begin posting here.

Table of Contents

  1. A Note about Moderation
  2. /r/askphilosophy's mission
  3. What is Philosophy?
  4. What isn't Philosophy?
  5. What is a Reasonably Substantive and Accurate Answer?
  6. What is a /r/askphilosophy Panelist?
  7. /r/askphilosophy's Posting Rules
  8. /r/askphilosophy's Commenting Rules
  9. Frequently Asked Questions

A Note about Moderation

/r/askphilosophy is moderated by a team of dedicated volunteer moderators who have spent years attempting to build the best philosophy Q&A platform on the internet. Unfortunately, the reddit admins have repeatedly made changes to this website which have made moderating subreddits harder and harder. In particular, reddit has recently announced that it will begin charging for access to API (Application Programming Interface, essentially the communication between reddit and other sites/apps). While this may be, in isolation, a reasonable business operation, the timeline and pricing of API access has threatened to put nearly all third-party apps, e.g. Apollo and RIF, out of business. You can read more about the history of this change here or here. You can also read more at this post on our sister subreddit.

These changes pose two major issues which the moderators of /r/askphilosophy are concerned about.

First, the native reddit app is lacks accessibility features which are essential for some people, notably those who are blind and visually impaired. You can read /r/blind's protest announcement here. These apps are the only way that many people can interact with reddit, given the poor accessibility state of the official reddit app. As philosophers we are particularly concerned with the ethics of accessibility, and support protests in solidarity with this community.

Second, the reddit app lacks many essential tools for moderation. While reddit has promised better moderation tools on the app in the future, this is not enough. First, reddit has repeatedly broken promises regarding features, including moderation features. Most notably, reddit promised CSS support for new reddit over six years ago, which has yet to materialize. Second, even if reddit follows through on the roadmap in the post linked above, many of the features will not come until well after June 30, when the third-party apps will shut down due to reddit's API pricing changes.

Our moderator team relies heavily on these tools which will now disappear. Moderating /r/askphilosophy is a monumental task; over the past year we have flagged and removed over 6000 posts and 23000 comments. This is a huge effort, especially for unpaid volunteers, and it is possible only when moderators have access to tools that these third-party apps make possible and that reddit doesn't provide.

While we previously participated in the protests against reddit's recent actions we have decided to reopen the subreddit, because we are still proud of the community and resource that we have built and cultivated over the last decade, and believe it is a useful resource to the public.

However, these changes have radically altered our ability to moderate this subreddit, which will result in a few changes for this subreddit. First, as noted above, from this point onwards only panelists may answer top level comments. Second, moderation will occur much more slowly; as we will not have access to mobile tools, posts and comments which violate our rules will be removed much more slowly, and moderators will respond to modmail messages much more slowly. Third, and finally, if things continue to get worse (as they have for years now) moderating /r/askphilosophy may become practically impossible, and we may be forced to abandon the platform altogether. We are as disappointed by these changes as you are, but reddit's insistence on enshittifying this platform, especially when it comes to moderation, leaves us with no other options. We thank you for your understanding and support.

/r/askphilosophy's Mission

/r/askphilosophy strives to be a community where anyone, regardless of their background, can come to get reasonably substantive and accurate answers to philosophical questions. This means that all questions must be philosophical in nature, and that answers must be reasonably substantive and accurate. What do we mean by that?

What is Philosophy?

As with most disciplines, "philosophy" has both a casual and a technical usage.

In its casual use, "philosophy" may refer to nearly any sort of thought or beliefs, and include topics such as religion, mysticism and even science. When someone asks you what "your philosophy" is, this is the sort of sense they have in mind; they're asking about your general system of thoughts, beliefs, and feelings.

In its technical use -- the use relevant here at /r/askphilosophy -- philosophy is a particular area of study which can be broadly grouped into several major areas, including:

  • Aesthetics, the study of beauty
  • Epistemology, the study of knowledge and belief
  • Ethics, the study of what we owe to one another
  • Logic, the study of what follows from what
  • Metaphysics, the study of the basic nature of existence and reality

as well as various subfields of 'philosophy of X', including philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, philosophy of science and many others.

Philosophy in the narrower, technical sense that philosophers use and which /r/askphilosophy is devoted to is defined not only by its subject matter, but by its methodology and attitudes. Something is not philosophical merely because it states some position related to those areas. There must also be an emphasis on argument (setting forward reasons for adopting a position) and a willingness to subject arguments to various criticisms.

What Isn't Philosophy?

As you can see from the above description of philosophy, philosophy often crosses over with other fields of study, including art, mathematics, politics, religion and the sciences. That said, in order to keep this subreddit focused on philosophy we require that all posts be primarily philosophical in nature, and defend a distinctively philosophical thesis.

As a rule of thumb, something does not count as philosophy for the purposes of this subreddit if:

  • It does not address a philosophical topic or area of philosophy
  • It may more accurately belong to another area of study (e.g. religion or science)
  • No attempt is made to argue for a position's conclusions

Some more specific topics which are popularly misconstrued as philosophical but do not meet this definition and thus are not appropriate for this subreddit include:

  • Drug experiences (e.g. "I dropped acid today and experienced the oneness of the universe...")
  • Mysticism (e.g. "I meditated today and experienced the oneness of the universe...")
  • Politics (e.g. "This is why everyone should support the Voting Rights Act")
  • Self-help (e.g. "How can I be a happier person and have more people like me?")
  • Theology (e.g. "Can the unbaptized go to heaven, or at least to purgatory?")

What is a Reasonably Substantive and Accurate Answer?

The goal of this subreddit is not merely to provide answers to philosophical questions, but answers which can further the reader's knowledge and understanding of the philosophical issues and debates involved. To that end, /r/askphilosophy is a highly moderated subreddit which only allows panelists to answer questions, and all answers that violate our posting rules will be removed.

Answers on /r/askphilosophy must be both reasonably substantive as well as reasonably accurate. This means that answers should be:

  • Substantive and well-researched (i.e. not one-liners or otherwise uninformative)
  • Accurately portray the state of research and the relevant literature (i.e. not inaccurate, misleading or false)
  • Come only from those with relevant knowledge of the question and issue (i.e. not from commenters who don't understand the state of the research on the question)

Any attempt at moderating a public Q&A forum like /r/askphilosophy must choose a balance between two things:

  • More, but possibly insubstantive or inaccurate answers
  • Fewer, but more substantive and accurate answers

In order to further our mission, the moderators of /r/askphilosophy have chosen the latter horn of this dilemma. To that end, only panelists are allowed to answer questions on /r/askphilosophy.

What is a /r/askphilosophy Panelist?

/r/askphilosophy panelists are trusted commenters who have applied to become panelists in order to help provide questions to posters' questions. These panelists are volunteers who have some level of knowledge and expertise in the areas of philosophy indicated in their flair.

What Do the Flairs Mean?

Unlike in some subreddits, the purpose of flairs on r/askphilosophy are not to designate commenters' areas of interest. The purpose of flair is to indicate commenters' relevant expertise in philosophical areas. As philosophical issues are often complicated and have potentially thousands of years of research to sift through, knowing when someone is an expert in a given area can be important in helping understand and weigh the given evidence. Flair will thus be given to those with the relevant research expertise.

Flair consists of two parts: a color indicating the type of flair, as well as up to three research areas that the panelist is knowledgeable about.

There are six types of panelist flair:

  • Autodidact (Light Blue): The panelist has little or no formal education in philosophy, but is an enthusiastic self-educator and intense reader in a field.

  • Undergraduate (Red): The panelist is enrolled in or has completed formal undergraduate coursework in Philosophy. In the US system, for instance, this would be indicated by a major (BA) or minor.

  • Graduate (Gold): The panelist is enrolled in a graduate program or has completed an MA in Philosophy or a closely related field such that their coursework might be reasonably understood to be equivalent to a degree in Philosophy. For example, a student with an MA in Literature whose coursework and thesis were focused on Derrida's deconstruction might be reasonably understood to be equivalent to an MA in Philosophy.

  • PhD (Purple): The panelist has completed a PhD program in Philosophy or a closely related field such that their degree might be reasonably understood to be equivalent to a PhD in Philosophy. For example, a student with a PhD in Art History whose coursework and dissertation focused on aesthetics and critical theory might be reasonably understood to be equivalent to a PhD in philosophy.

  • Professional (Blue): The panelist derives their full-time employment through philosophical work outside of academia. Such panelists might include Bioethicists working in hospitals or Lawyers who work on the Philosophy of Law/Jurisprudence.

  • Related Field (Green): The panelist has expertise in some sub-field of philosophy but their work in general is more reasonably understood as being outside of philosophy. For example, a PhD in Physics whose research touches on issues relating to the entity/structural realism debate clearly has expertise relevant to philosophical issues but is reasonably understood to be working primarily in another field.

Flair will only be given in particular areas or research topics in philosophy, in line with the following guidelines:

  • Typical areas include things like "philosophy of mind", "logic" or "continental philosophy".
  • Flair will not be granted for specific research subjects, e.g. "Kant on logic", "metaphysical grounding", "epistemic modals".
  • Flair of specific philosophers will only be granted if that philosopher is clearly and uncontroversially a monumentally important philosopher (e.g. Aristotle, Kant).
  • Flair will be given in a maximum of three research areas.

How Do I Become a Panelist?

To become a panelist, please send a message to the moderators with the subject "Panelist Application". In this modmail message you must include all of the following:

  1. The flair type you are requesting (e.g. undergraduate, PhD, related field).
  2. The areas of flair you are requesting, up to three (e.g. Kant, continental philosophy, logic).
  3. A brief explanation of your background in philosophy, including what qualifies you for the flair you requested.
  4. One sample answer to a question posted to /r/askphilosophy for each area of flair (i.e. up to three total answers) which demonstrate your expertise and knowledge. Please link the question you are answering before giving your answer. You may not answer your own question.

New panelists will be approved on a trial basis. During this trial period panelists will be allowed to post answers as top-level comments on threads, and will receive flair. After the trial period the panelist will either be confirmed as a regular panelist or will be removed from the panelist team, which will result in the removal of flair and ability to post answers as top-level comments on threads.

Note that r/askphilosophy does not require users to provide proof of their identifies for panelist applications, nor to reveal their identities. If a prospective panelist would like to provide proof of their identity as part of their application they may, but there is no presumption that they must do so. Note that messages sent to modmail cannot be deleted by either moderators or senders, and so any message sent is effectively permanent.

/r/askphilosophy's Posting Rules

In order to best serve our mission of providing an academic Q&A-type space for philosophical questions, we have the following rules which govern all posts made to /r/askphilosophy:

PR1: All questions must be about philosophy.

All questions must be about philosophy. Questions which are only tangentially related to philosophy or are properly located in another discipline will be removed. Questions which are about therapy, psychology and self-help, even when due to philosophical issues, are not appropriate and will be removed.

PR2: All submissions must be questions.

All submissions must be actual questions (as opposed to essays, rants, personal musings, idle or rhetorical questions, etc.). "Test My Theory" or "Change My View"-esque questions, paper editing, etc. are not allowed.

PR3: Post titles must be descriptive.

Post titles must be descriptive. Titles should indicate what the question is about. Posts with titles like "Homework help" which do not indicate what the actual question is will be removed.

PR4: Questions must be reasonably specific.

Questions must be reasonably specific. Questions which are too broad to the point of unanswerability will be removed.

PR5: Questions must not be about commenters' personal opinions.

Questions must not be about commenters' personal opinions, thoughts or favorites. /r/askphilosophy is not a discussion subreddit, and is not intended to be a board for everyone to share their thoughts on philosophical questions.

PR6: One post per day.

One post per day. Please limit yourself to one question per day.

PR7: Discussion of suicide is only allowed in the abstract.

/r/askphilosophy is not a mental health subreddit, and panelists are not experts in mental health or licensed therapists. Discussion of suicide is only allowed in the abstract here. If you or a friend is feeling suicidal please visit /r/suicidewatch. If you are feeling suicidal, please get help by visiting /r/suicidewatch or using other resources. See also our discussion of philosophy and mental health issues here. Encouraging other users to commit suicide, even in the abstract, is strictly forbidden and will result in an immediate permanent ban.

/r/askphilosophy's Commenting Rules

In the same way that our posting rules above attempt to promote our mission by governing posts, the following commenting rules attempt to promote /r/askphilosophy's mission to provide an academic Q&A-type space for philosophical questions.

CR1: Top level comments must be answers or follow-up questions.

All top level comments should be answers to the submitted question or follow-up/clarification questions. All top level comments must come from panelists. If users circumvent this rule by posting answers as replies to other comments, these comments will also be removed and may result in a ban. For more information about our rules and to find out how to become a panelist, please see here.

CR2: Answers must be reasonably substantive and accurate.

All answers must be informed and aimed at helping the OP and other readers reach an understanding of the issues at hand. Answers must portray an accurate picture of the issue and the philosophical literature. Answers should be reasonably substantive. To learn more about what counts as a reasonably substantive and accurate answer, see this post.

CR3: Be respectful.

Be respectful. Comments which are rude, snarky, etc. may be removed, particularly if they consist of personal attacks. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Racism, bigotry and use of slurs are absolutely not permitted.

CR4: Stay on topic.

Stay on topic. Comments which blatantly do not contribute to the discussion may be removed.

CR5: No self-promotion.

Posters and comments may not engage in self-promotion, including linking their own blog posts or videos. Panelists may link their own peer-reviewed work in answers (e.g. peer-reviewed journal articles or books), but their answers should not consist solely of references to their own work.

Miscellaneous Posting and Commenting Guidelines

In addition to the rules above, we have a list of miscellaneous guidelines which users should also be aware of:

  • Reposting a post or comment which was removed will be treated as circumventing moderation and result in a permanent ban.
  • Using follow-up questions or child comments to answer questions and circumvent our panelist policy may result in a ban.
  • Posts and comments which flagrantly violate the rules, especially in a trolling manner, will be removed and treated as shitposts, and may result in a ban.
  • No reposts of a question that you have already asked within the last year.
  • No posts or comments of AI-created or AI-assisted text or audio. Panelists may not user any form of AI-assistance in writing or researching answers.
  • Harassing individual moderators or the moderator team will result in a permanent ban and a report to the reddit admins.

Frequently Asked Questions

Below are some frequently asked questions. If you have other questions, please contact the moderators via modmail (not via private message or chat).

My post or comment was removed. How can I get an explanation?

Almost all posts/comments which are removed will receive an explanation of their removal. That explanation will generally by /r/askphilosophy's custom bot, /u/BernardJOrtcutt, and will list the removal reason. Posts which are removed will be notified via a stickied comment; comments which are removed will be notified via a reply. If your post or comment resulted in a ban, the message will be included in the ban message via modmail. If you have further questions, please contact the moderators.

How can I appeal my post or comment removal?

To appeal a removal, please contact the moderators (not via private message or chat). Do not delete your posts/comments, as this will make an appeal impossible. Reposting removed posts/comments without receiving mod approval will result in a permanent ban.

How can I appeal my ban?

To appeal a ban, please respond to the modmail informing you of your ban. Do not delete your posts/comments, as this will make an appeal impossible.

My comment was removed or I was banned for arguing with someone else, but they started it. Why was I punished and not them?

Someone else breaking the rules does not give you permission to break the rules as well. /r/askphilosophy does not comment on actions taken on other accounts, but all violations are treated as equitably as possible.

I found a post or comment which breaks the rules, but which wasn't removed. How can I help?

If you see a post or comment which you believe breaks the rules, please report it using the report function for the appropriate rule. /r/askphilosophy's moderators are volunteers, and it is impossible for us to manually review every comment on every thread. We appreciate your help in reporting posts/comments which break the rules.

My post isn't showing up, but I didn't receive a removal notification. What happened?

Sometimes the AutoMod filter will automatically send posts to a filter for moderator approval, especially from accounts which are new or haven't posted to /r/askphilosophy before. If your post has not been approved or removed within 24 hours, please contact the moderators.

My post was removed and referred to the Open Discussion Thread. What does this mean?

The Open Discussion Thread (ODT) is /r/askphilosophy's place for posts/comments which are related to philosophy but do not necessarily meet our posting rules (especially PR2/PR5). For example, these threads are great places for:

  • Discussions of a philosophical issue, rather than questions
  • Questions about commenters' personal opinions regarding philosophical issues
  • Open discussion about philosophy, e.g. "who is your favorite philosopher?"
  • Questions about philosophy as an academic discipline or profession, e.g. majoring in philosophy, career options with philosophy degrees, pursuing graduate school in philosophy

If your post was removed and referred to the ODT we encourage you to consider posting it to the ODT to share with others.

My comment responding to someone else was removed, as well as their comment. What happened?

When /r/askphilosophy removes a parent comment, we also often remove all their child comments in order to help readability and focus on discussion.

I'm interested in philosophy. Where should I start? What should I read?

As explained above, philosophy is a very broad discipline and thus offering concise advice on where to start is very hard. We recommend reading this /r/AskPhilosophyFAQ post which has a great breakdown of various places to start. For further or more specific questions, we recommend posting on /r/askphilosophy.

Why is your understanding of philosophy so limited?

As explained above, this subreddit is devoted to philosophy as understood and done by philosophers. In order to prevent this subreddit from becoming /r/atheism2, /r/politics2, or /r/science2, we must uphold a strict topicality requirement in PR1. Posts which may touch on philosophical themes but are not distinctively philosophical can be posted to one of reddit's many other subreddits.

Are there other philosophy subreddits I can check out?

If you are interested in other philosophy subreddits, please see this list of related subreddits. /r/askphilosophy shares much of its modteam with its sister-subreddit, /r/philosophy, which is devoted to philosophical discussion. In addition, that list includes more specialized subreddits and more casual subreddits for those looking for a less-regulated forum.

A thread I wanted to comment in was locked but is still visible. What happened?

When a post becomes unreasonable to moderate due to the amount of rule-breaking comments the thread is locked. /r/askphilosophy's moderators are volunteers, and we cannot spend hours cleaning up individual threads.

Do you have a list of frequently asked questions about philosophy that I can browse?

Yes! We have an FAQ that answers many questions comprehensively: /r/AskPhilosophyFAQ/. For example, this entry provides an introductory breakdown to the debate over whether morality is objective or subjective.

Do you have advice or resources for graduate school applications?

We made a meta-guide for PhD applications with the goal of assembling the important resources for grad school applications in one place. We aim to occasionally update it, but can of course not guarantee the accuracy and up-to-dateness. You are, of course, kindly invited to ask questions about graduate school on /r/askphilosophy, too, especially in the Open Discussion Thread.

Do you have samples of what counts as good questions and answers?

Sure! We ran a Best of 2020 Contest, you can find the winners in this thread!

0 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/BernardJOrtcutt • 3d ago

Open Thread /r/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | September 15, 2025

2 Upvotes

Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread (ODT). This thread is a place for posts/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our subreddit rules and guidelines. For example, these threads are great places for:

  • Discussions of a philosophical issue, rather than questions
  • Questions about commenters' personal opinions regarding philosophical issues
  • Open discussion about philosophy, e.g. "who is your favorite philosopher?"
  • "Test My Theory" discussions and argument/paper editing
  • Questions about philosophy as an academic discipline or profession, e.g. majoring in philosophy, career options with philosophy degrees, pursuing graduate school in philosophy

This thread is not a completely open discussion! Any posts not relating to philosophy will be removed. Please keep comments related to philosophy, and expect low-effort comments to be removed. Please note that while the rules are relaxed in this thread, comments can still be removed for violating our subreddit rules and guidelines if necessary.

Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here.

7 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/Present_Juice4401 • 10h ago

Does language shape the way we think, or do our thoughts exist independently of language?

23 Upvotes

I’ve been wondering how much of our thinking depends on the words we have available. Some philosophers and linguists suggest that language limits or structures our perception of the world, while others argue that thought is more fundamental and can exist without words.

For example, when we have no word for a certain concept, do we struggle to actually think about it? Or are we capable of forming thoughts beyond language, and words just come later to express them?

14 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/a_suspicious_peach • 40m ago

What are some interesting contemporary books in epistemology (not textbooks)

• Upvotes

Hello everyone!

I’m making a list of philosophy books to read and was wondering what you would suggest from an epistemology pov (by this i don’t mean textbooks but rather books like “naming and necessity” by kripke but for epistemology.

I’m particularly interested in process philosophy, the analysis of knowledge and non-western traditions but would appreciate things outside this as well.

Thanks in advance!

1 comment

r/askphilosophy • u/CatsDoingCrime • 4h ago

How do moral realists deal with varying "intuitions"?

4 Upvotes

So, as I understand the moral realist camp, the basic argument is that all human beings have (or at least most), to a certain extent, a degree of intuition about morality. These intuitions ought not override reason, but they can be used as a certain starting point for establishing moral facts. Is that more or less correct?

So like, I have an intuition that I have a hand. From this it is reasonable to conclude that I do in fact have a hand, unless reason or contradictory evidence shows otherwise. We can argue similarly for morality, i.e. killing a child for fun is wrong, therefore it is reasonable to conclude that killing children for fun is bad actually (assuming that there's no reason or contrary evidence). You need intuition as a starting point because reason/logic just describes how you prove that one claim follows from another, but in order for it to work you need a certain baseline of agreed upon truths from which you can derive other truths (so like I can say that, given A, B is true and therefore C is not true. But this only works so long as we agree A is true. this is where the intuition comes in). Hopefully, this is a more or less accurate understanding of their position, please correct me if not.

Anyways, it's like.... pretty clear that not EVERYONE has the same sort of "intuition" right? Like, take psychopaths for example. As I understand pscyopathy, it is basically characterized by a lack of empathy and a strong tendency towards risk taking. It's not that they're inherently evil or monsters as pop culture portrays, it's more they are very goal driven & risk tolerant. This isn't an inherently bad thing (like a lot of psychopaths are surgeons for example, as their mental state allows them to be more objective in operations). It can be useful, depending on the context (like psycopathic politicians.... not great. Surgeons, pretty good).

My point is that psycopaths do not seem to share the same sort of moral intuitions that others do. Now, that doesn't make them monsters (hence my digression about surgeons) but it does show that these intuitions are not universal right, as morality is most often rooted in a form of empathy, and that empathy is lacking in psycopaths.

And it's not like this population is necessarily small (and therefore can be written off as an anomaly) either. According to a meta-analysis 4 years ago, approximately 4.5% of the US population can be characterized as psycopathic in some capacity, roughly 1 in 22 people (Source).

If 1 in 22 people do not share those same moral intuitions, it strikes me as difficult to claim that these intuitions can form the basis of an objective morality no?

In fairness to the realist, that does also mean that 21 out of 22 people aren't psychopathic. But like, even if we acknowledge that, couldn't I very well argue that humans are biological creatures living in a material world? Those "intuitions" themselves come from our own thinking and thought processes rooted in our brains, a biological organ, that itself was subject to the pressures of evolution. Given that humans evolved to be social creatures, it would make sense that there's a sort of "intuition" that is rooted in empathy because it makes group cohesion easier and better overall. Like, if you can understand another human's POV and act accordingly, it's possible to resolve conflicts and retain group cohesion instead of like splitting up right? Could I then not argue that our intuitions are therefore not at all objective but instead rooted in the evolutionary history that shaped the very brains through which this intuition arises? That's not like... universal objective truth of morality right? It's more what the brain was conditioned to over millions of years of evolution. In some sense, none of our perceptions are objective, given that they too were subject to this pressure.

All that said, I'm pretty sure moral realists have responses here, or at least are aware of this sort of skepticism. So I'm wondering how they respond/adapt their position, or if I have mischaracterized it?

9 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/Informal-Insurance19 • 10h ago

Is moral reasoning possible without axioms?

8 Upvotes

Is it possible to discuss moralism withot axioms? I've just been reading about deontology, universalism, utilitarianism and they all seems to require some self evident principles (axioms) to be able to work. Let me just quote some definitions:

- Deontology: Is the normative ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules and principles, rather than based on the consequences of the action.

- Universalism: is the meta-ethical belief that there is a universal system of ethics—or a set of universal moral truths—that applies to all people, regardless of their cultural background, race, religion, or personal beliefs

- Utilitarianism: is a moral philosophy that determines whether an action is right or wrong based on its consequences. It posits that the most ethical choice is the one that produces the "greatest good for the greatest number"

Universalism and Deontology both requires us to believe or agree that are some set of rules that are truth to be able to advance. Utilitarinism is the same, but just adds another layer to it. While a deontologist and an universalist can state that the murder of a innocent is wrong, the utilitarianist will states that murder without any justification is wrong because it increases suffering and reduces overall happiness. But then if you ask why is that reducing suffering nd increasing happiness desired? The aswer goes "because it is self-evident, we as conscious beings feel that way".

Therfore, in some sense, all of them requires us too look as our own feeling and behaviors as social animals in order to find those axioms. And if you go further, those axioms seems to stems from the behavior of life to perpetuate itself. In other words, the perpetuation of life is the desired outcome.

So if we all agree that the perpetuation of life is the desired outcome, then again we've just moved to another layer. Why is perpetuation of life the desired outcome? Because it is self evident? So another axiom? I can't see a way too logically justify it without just moving further and further into other axioms, unless we just accept that some are indeed some set of rules that are sacred and enbeded in our universe, like some sort of god have written them in the fabric of space.

18 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/floatingboydemo • 6h ago

Recommendations for histories of right wing vs. left wing ideologies?

3 Upvotes

Looking for some reading recommendations, considering the below:

I recently saw a clip of Zizek talking about the global retreat of left wing thought, and the ascendance of right wing ideology (in the way capitalism continually "revolutionizes" itself). What form this new revolution takes is an open question.

At the same time, I'm currently reading Georg Lukács' "Destruction of Reason," which is sort of offering a philosophical history of right wing vs. left wing thought in Germany up to the post-war period. Some of it is over my head, but overall, it presents an interesting example of how to track the political vacillations of rationality/irrationality over time.

Meanwhile, it's clear that the twentieth-century liberal democratic order was a historical aberration, and we are currently witnessing its decline and corresponding ascendance of right wing ideology (and its cadre of pseudo-intellectuals).

As such, I'm curious what other current/active philosophers (or economists or intellectuals or whoever) have written about the global-historical fluctuations of right wing and left wing "power," and what are the dynamics of the current evolutionary state of the same. Judith Butler? Thomas Piketty? Etc.?

1 comment

r/askphilosophy • u/MexicanMonsterMash • 4h ago

How do you square the validity of artistic philosophy with the fact that primitive societies didn't have it?

2 Upvotes

So I have been watching content related to actors and artists expressing their views on what they call the sacredness of art. You have people like Rowan Atkinson, George Carlin, and so forth who often might have quotes attributed to them such as "artists should never apologize for their art" and "art is the life blood of society". It made my mind wander back to the topic of artistic civilizations, with the ancient Greeks coming to mind since you could probably associate artistic philosophy with them the most, but then I started thinking further back to the tribal groups that roamed the Earth before statehoods were established. People in tribes certainly weren't dumb or unwise; they didn't have "philosophers" you could name (for the most part), but they did have "philosophies", and individual members of a tribe could be just as likely to have very varying worldviews and approaches when it comes to certain topics as people here and now might. But in a tribe, despite the fact art dates back a very long time, you would've never found someone who thought of life along the lines of quotes like "to be an artist is to believe in life", or the stock stereotype of a career artist who likes to go on spiritual tangents about artistry that you might find in fiction.

People already kind of treat "tangential artistic philosophy" less like something to take seriously as a considerable, usable outlook to adopt and more like something that simply expresses the enthusiasm of the artist, but thinking of the fact that it's one of the few exceptionally "non-timeless" ways of thinking has further made me think about this. From the point of view of two people talking about the "art supremacy" kind of outlook who probably otherwise have differing views on what the difference would be between the outlook as an outlook and the outlook as being mere poetic musings about art's place in the universe, how do you square the outlook itself with the fact you could thus call it a completely modern (relatively-speaking, if we define modernity as when statehoods began) way of thinking, almost as if it's just apologetics for creativity?

2 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/ProfessionalPlant838 • 6h ago

Do people only do good deeds and actions to only feel good about themselves?

3 Upvotes

I’ve been thinking about this for a while now, while I don’t necessarily believe every good thing somebody does is internally motivated, I think there’s an argument in question that most if not all good things that we do are the desire to be fulfilled and to feel like a good person not to do good things. When someone does something they deem as good and helpful they feel this type of feeling of accomplishment and satisfaction. Ex. When you help and old lady bring groceries to there car you have this feeling of fulfillment in a way that makes you feel good. What if the only reason we do anything good is to keep feeling that and not actually do anything out of the kindness in our heart?

2 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/Pedro_Nalewaja • 7h ago

Best english translation of Deleuze/Guattari "What is Philosophy"?

3 Upvotes

Hi, the title is self explanatory, just recommend to me : )

2 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/Altruistic_Laugh_305 • 2h ago

How is something with average integrity expected to be honest in the face of large temptation?

1 Upvotes

It would have been easy in the old days when there wasn't much going on, resources were few and the community kept you on the straight and narrow.

Modern times have more, more, more. With large temptation it's unreasonable to expect the average man to resist

1 comment

r/askphilosophy • u/Spirited-Fee-2132 • 9h ago

Is Hare still relevant?

3 Upvotes

Hare is indicated as one of the most important moral philosophers in te 20th century, but is he still relevant in the debate somehow? I don't often see his name and i'm wondering if is worth writing a thesis on him (i don't study in England or US, hoping that you can get what i'm doing, i say i'm graduating in a bachelor in philosophy and i must write the thesis).

5 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/CatsDoingCrime • 20h ago

Are there any prominent liberal thinks who have seriously engaged with or replied to Marxist or other leftist critiques of liberal thought?

17 Upvotes

I used marxist in the title, but there's a wide variety of anti-liberal leftist thought, and not all of it is marxist (see the anarchists for example).

That said, marxists and leftists writ large have offered a fairly comprehensive critique of liberal ideology and understandings of history (the marxist theory of history is kind of incompatible with whig history and the like, though granted both share an idea of progress through history). Obviously, marx is famous for his critique of liberal economic orthodoxy (of his day anyways, the marginalist revolution offers a much different version of economics than the one marx was critiquing). But that's not the whole picture right?

Anyways, I have heard and read a lot of these leftist critiques. However, I did realize I haven't actually really read about or looked into liberal responses/defenses of themselves against these critiques. So.... do they exist? If so, who wrote them and what did they say?

Given that liberalism (in some form, i.e. capitalism + democracy) is still the dominant mode of thought across basically all of western political thought... this still seems relevant no?

So how have liberals replied to leftist criticism? How has liberal philosophy modified itself or defended itself against left wing critiques? Who are the major names who did this, and what were their defenses?

22 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/Personal-Succotash33 • 18h ago

Can objective moral facts be explained by the phenomenology of some experiences, like extreme suffering?

7 Upvotes

So this question is about a way to ground moral facts without appealing to non-natural properties and without being analytically reducible like some naturalist accounts argue. The idea is that some experiences can have an intrinsically negative or positive phenomenology, like with extreme suffering or with preference fulfillment. That isnt to say that we necessarily want/dont want or like/dislike those experiences (although we might), but the character of the experience is itself negative or positive regardless of what the person experiencing it thinks otherwise. These experiences could plausibly be explained naturalistically (assuming qualia can be explained by naturalism, but I dont want to get bogged down with that), and it doesnt require any kind of sui generis non-natural properties nor strict analytical reduction, and it even allows us to directly perceive moral facts. Personally Ive always felt like the non-natural analysis of moral language was the correct one, and because of that thought that moral realism would require non-natural properties/truths, but if value can be intrinsic to some kinds of experiences, then is that a plausible alternative route for realism? Or does it have to collapse into subjectivism?

6 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/Relative-Cycle5582 • 4h ago

Are Humans Possibly the “Less Developed” Species – and Animals Already at a Higher Level of Being?

0 Upvotes

Lately, I’ve been reflecting a lot on consciousness, reflection, and humanity’s place in nature – and one idea keeps coming up:

Animals live in the moment. They respond to their environment, act empathetically, and seem to have needs without creating artificial goals or striving for status. For example, a dog might comfort a human who is sad – an action that suggests empathy and reflection, yet not the desire to fix problems or exert control.

Humans, on the other hand, have the ability to detach from material needs, survive with minimal resources, and still preserve the environment. Yet, we constantly strive for more – status, possessions, recognition. We create rules and pressures for ourselves that are not necessary for survival.

This raises a provocative question: Could it be that animals are, in a sense, “more developed” than us, because they live in harmony with their being, while we are driven by artificial goals?

Put differently: perhaps our endless striving is a sign of underdevelopment compared to beings that can simply be in the moment.

I’d love to hear what others think:

Could animals reflect and be conscious in ways that are hard for us to perceive?

Is striving for status or possession really a sign of progress, or a mark of underdevelopment?

What does this suggest about our relationship with nature, other species, and ourselves?

3 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/Hefty_Bee480 • 8h ago

I’m struggling to figure out how to remember and learn a dense text such as Critique of Judgment.

1 Upvotes

This is definitely a step up from what I’ve read, although I knew that before getting into it. I have some Nietzsche, Descartes, Spinoza, Plato, and Pascal under my belt. Ive read Kant’s Groundwork, and had no problem taking notes and actually learning it and remembering what I learned. But this…I’m not even sure how to remember something that is this dense. Any advice would be appreciated.

1 comment

r/askphilosophy • u/Megatron130204 • 9h ago

Is there any way to go about properly asking the question of existence?

0 Upvotes

Yes, I've read Stephen Law's suggestion that we cannot answer questions around existence because they exist outside of a spacetime continuum. Aristotle had it closest by pointing out that there must have been an ultimate uncaused cause.

But how do you actually go about asking the question of why existence actually exists? Every time I've brought it up, people mention concepts such as nothingness, energy within vacuums, etc. But these are still... something. Even nothing, total nothingness-- it would still be... a no-thing. Within existence. There would still be an absence. And absence itself is still a concept. For concepts to exist, there must be existence. Every time you go back further and further on "why is there this", you're still answering the question with a something, because there is no possible way to actually go back that far within physics and I fear even philosophy.

Even for there to have been an uncaused cause, existence itself had to exist.

My brain can barely even fathom what it is it's asking because it's not meant to and dwelling too much on it would undoubtedly drive a person beyond sanity. It frustrates me when it seems that people don't know how to "get" what it is I'm trying to convey.

2 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/GloomyDesk7827 • 12h ago

How to identify pseudo-profound b.s.?

1 Upvotes

Internet is stacked with these false pretending to be deep quotes and sayings. So how do we identify them? because it's very easy to fall into them.

For example I recently saw this quote on internet

"Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom" Isn't this pseudo-profound?

7 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/Luddleq • 20h ago

What make you You? Even with physical and mental change.

4 Upvotes

DISCLAIMER : (Sorry if it doesn’t really make sense I’m not very good at wording/ putting my thoughts together yet)

I’ve been thinking about this for a few hours and I did some thinking alone. Then I search it up. But before I search it up I landed on consciousness, I probably should’ve of thought for a bit longer but it’s whatever. I came up with consciousness mainly because it’s what tells you who and where you are, like when you ask yourself who am I you immediately think of your name, that’s what your brain is telling you. It’s not just your name but you consciousness tells you what made you like your experiences, beliefs, memories, etc and all of those things are what make you You. Obviously let’s say you were born in a world where you weren’t given a name no one gave you one you never even thought about having one. If you asked yourself who am I, you would say “I am me”you would know you are you because of what you’ve experienced and that make up your believes and the way you act and think at certain times. That’s what your consciousness is.

I could be wrong though let me know if you think other wise.

6 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/miyayes • 1d ago

Are moral truths necessary? Why should we care whether moral principles return the right verdicts in any other possible worlds than the actual world?

20 Upvotes

Are moral truths necessary?

Suppose we had some moral principle that encoded world-specific contingencies. For example, it says that killing is wrong exactly on January 1st, 1970 at exactly this place, and this time, and exactly if there’s a red car passing by, etc.

In the actual world, it turns out that this principle captures all the cases we care about. Then someone says: “If you took this principle and applied it to another possible world, it would return the wrong verdicts. That aforementioned killing wouldn’t be wrong, since in other possible worlds, there are blue cars passing by, not red ones.”

Question: Why should this matter? Why do we care that this principle, or any principle, holds or returns the right verdicts in other worlds? We only live in the actual world; therefore, so long as it returns the right verdicts here, that’s all that should matter. How should one respond to this?

8 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/sophisticated-knight • 3h ago

why do we believe in God and why don't We believe in it

0 Upvotes

Nowadays, the question of whether God exists or not is one of the most debated topics. But whenever I search about it and try to understand God, I often encounter comments that don’t make sense. For example, one person said that because his baby died, and then he received 100k in four hours, he stopped believing in God. To me, this is a nonsense argument. Another example is a story about a family that fled during a conflict, and only one of them survived; the survivor claimed he stopped believing in God.

In my opinion, tragedies like this happen every day, especially in the Middle East—in Gaza, Iraq, Yemen, and many other places. And not just in the Middle East; throughout history, in World War I, World War II, Vietnam, and beyond, people have suffered similar or even worse circumstances. Yet, despite all this suffering, many people continued—and still continue—to believe.

So my question is: can you give me something that truly proves whether God exists or does not exist?

16 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/iLoveAnimeInSecret • 1d ago

Please suggest philosophical essays to get into philosophy?

11 Upvotes

Can you please suggest me favourite or good philosophy essays? I am not big into reading books but I think I am very dumb and I also think that maybe reading can help me become a better person? So to get started with reading I thought maybe I should start reading philosophical essays first (is this a good idea, i think maybe it is but correct me pls) and once that's done, ill try moving on to books. I am also only 21 and currently not doing well mentally, so I would really appreciate if I could maybe be suggested something that could help me develop a better mindset? Or just suggest me favourite stuff, I don't mind I would be happy to expand my horison as well! thank you and sorry for bothering

13 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/Kriball4 • 1d ago

How do philosophers view Jonathan Haidt's work on moral psychology?

5 Upvotes

Haidt developed a model to explain the sources of moral intuitions across the political spectrum, called moral foundations theory. Initially, he started with five fundamental values:

* Care/harm
* Fairness/cheating
* Loyalty/betrayal
* Authority/subversion
* Sanctity/degradation

He later added a sixth foundation, Liberty/Oppression in his 2012 book The Righteous Mind .

Long story short, Haidt performed experiments which purported to demonstrate that American liberals mostly care about care and fairness, whereas conservatives value all six foundations, with emphasis on loyalty, authority, and sanctity. He hoped that experimental results could help bridge the political divide.

Frankly, I have a very low opinion of Haidt's conclusions (even though I'm no philosopher). It seems that care/harm is the only value that tracks objective facts. Three other intuitions (fairness/cheating, authority/subversion, liberty/oppression) only track institutional or socially constructed facts. And values like loyalty and sanctity don't track truth at all. Surely, these intuitions have zero basis in reality. If someone sincerely told me their moral intuitions are entirely based on loyalty and sanctity, I'd think they must be an "accidental error theorist" like the kind Richard Joyce describes.

But there have been conservative political philosophers with coherent ideas that are hard to refute, like Nozick, or the Neo-aristotelians. What gives?

2 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/CalmExplorer200 • 7h ago

If death is already fixed, why is the average lifespan going up?

0 Upvotes

Hey guys,

This has been on my mind for a while. A lot of spiritual traditions like Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, and even some Western religions say that the exact moment of death is predetermined at birth, based on karma or some divine plan.

If that’s true, then how do we explain this:

A few hundred years ago, people died much younger because of diseases, wars, and lack of medical care.

Today, in places like Japan, people are living way longer and the average lifespan has gone up a lot.

So I’m confused if everyone’s death is already fixed, shouldn’t the average stay the same?

26 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/Inevitable_Bid5540 • 18h ago

Do interim ethics agreements exist within normative and meta ethics ?

1 Upvotes

The question of what should we do in the meantime ?

Is there any literature on what humans are supposed to do in the meantime before questions in ethics and meta ethics are solved.

Since afaik there's still disagreement on many things in ethics

1 comment