Chris Mora | Montana State University - Bozeman (original) (raw)
Uploads
Papers by Chris Mora
In philosophy of mind philosophers, I believe, have been arguing about what matters in philosophy... more In philosophy of mind philosophers, I believe, have been arguing about what matters in philosophy of mind, but have not made a case for what the mind is. I believe this approach of what matters has been most prominent in semantic externalism. This is to say that semantic externalists have been making a case as to describe what the mind does, but not what the mind is. I believe eliminative materialism offers an insight into what the mind is that poses questions and answers semantic externalism cannot answer or offer countering definitive answers to. I believe once we have discovered what the mind is we can then begin to debate what the mind does. This conflation of the 'is' and 'matters' needs to be bifurcated into a two order structure where we first discover what the mind is and then once that order is finished we can debate what the mind does. What the mind does is normative, what the mind is is not; this is due to our limitations of knowing what neurons 'know'. What the mind does could be classified as ethics in philosophy of mind (in that we have an ethical obligation to not discuss patently false theories), neuroethics, metaphysics of neurons, epistemic ethics, semantic externalism, and many of the names we mistakenly classify as first order philosophy of mind. But the first order process of discovering what the mind is must be accomplished first.
According to James Sterba libertarians, regardless of their tradition of libertarian thought, are... more According to James Sterba libertarians, regardless of their tradition of libertarian thought, are often unaware that two incompatible negative liberties come into conflict when the poor lack the resources to have their most basic nutritional needs met and the rich have more than enough resources to satisfy their basic needs. In this conflict the poor posses a negative liberty to take from the rich to satisfy their most basic nutritional needs and the rich have a negative liberty to use their surplus resources for luxury purposes. When deciding which liberty takes precedence the liberties are mutually exclusive: either the poor will perish or the rich will provide welfare with their surplus resources.
A number of theories have been put forward from the days of the pre-Socratic philosophers through... more A number of theories have been put forward from the days of the pre-Socratic philosophers through modern times attempting to determine how the relationship between the animal species and the human species ought to function in regards to how humans treat animals. These theories have generated numerous ideas, but often rely on claims that animals are living creatures and thus deserve a set of rights, or, that animals are an inferior species to humans but are living creatures capable of feeling pain and thus a superior human species has a duty to keep the pain inflicted upon animals at the lowest level possible it not eliminate it all together. In this essay, I will argue that neither a rights based approach nor a duty to the animals based approach to how humans ought to treat animals are correct, but that humans possess a duty to our humanity to treat animals in a way that is commensurate with how we treat fellow humans. I will distinguish the difference between animals and humans regarding each set of species capabilities of performing moral actions and explain why these differences disqualify animals from being owed a set of inherent rights. I will then offer a thought experiment, "how we treat non-moral agents" to show how even without providing creatures capable of moral actions a set of inherent rights humans still have a duty to ensure animals are not mistreated. This duty will challenge the idea that we have a duty to animals for animal's sake, and I will show why a duty to animals for humans will still allow for animals to be treated in ways humans would not wish upon other humans. I will then put forward my theory on why humans owe it to humanity to treat animals with a basic respect.
The Presidency has many problems, but boredom is the least of them." -President Richard M. Nixon
THE CHIEF JUSTICE fails to note that it was only black school children who were so ordered; indee... more THE CHIEF JUSTICE fails to note that it was only black school children who were so ordered; indeed the history books do not tell stories of white children struggling to attend black school" -Justice John Paul Stevens in a dissenting opinion from Parents Involved v. Seattle School District No. 1
In philosophy of mind philosophers, I believe, have been arguing about what matters in philosophy... more In philosophy of mind philosophers, I believe, have been arguing about what matters in philosophy of mind, but have not made a case for what the mind is. I believe this approach of what matters has been most prominent in semantic externalism. This is to say that semantic externalists have been making a case as to describe what the mind does, but not what the mind is. I believe eliminative materialism offers an insight into what the mind is that poses questions and answers semantic externalism cannot answer or offer countering definitive answers to. I believe once we have discovered what the mind is we can then begin to debate what the mind does. This conflation of the 'is' and 'matters' needs to be bifurcated into a two order structure where we first discover what the mind is and then once that order is finished we can debate what the mind does. What the mind does is normative, what the mind is is not; this is due to our limitations of knowing what neurons 'know'. What the mind does could be classified as ethics in philosophy of mind (in that we have an ethical obligation to not discuss patently false theories), neuroethics, metaphysics of neurons, epistemic ethics, semantic externalism, and many of the names we mistakenly classify as first order philosophy of mind. But the first order process of discovering what the mind is must be accomplished first.
According to James Sterba libertarians, regardless of their tradition of libertarian thought, are... more According to James Sterba libertarians, regardless of their tradition of libertarian thought, are often unaware that two incompatible negative liberties come into conflict when the poor lack the resources to have their most basic nutritional needs met and the rich have more than enough resources to satisfy their basic needs. In this conflict the poor posses a negative liberty to take from the rich to satisfy their most basic nutritional needs and the rich have a negative liberty to use their surplus resources for luxury purposes. When deciding which liberty takes precedence the liberties are mutually exclusive: either the poor will perish or the rich will provide welfare with their surplus resources.
A number of theories have been put forward from the days of the pre-Socratic philosophers through... more A number of theories have been put forward from the days of the pre-Socratic philosophers through modern times attempting to determine how the relationship between the animal species and the human species ought to function in regards to how humans treat animals. These theories have generated numerous ideas, but often rely on claims that animals are living creatures and thus deserve a set of rights, or, that animals are an inferior species to humans but are living creatures capable of feeling pain and thus a superior human species has a duty to keep the pain inflicted upon animals at the lowest level possible it not eliminate it all together. In this essay, I will argue that neither a rights based approach nor a duty to the animals based approach to how humans ought to treat animals are correct, but that humans possess a duty to our humanity to treat animals in a way that is commensurate with how we treat fellow humans. I will distinguish the difference between animals and humans regarding each set of species capabilities of performing moral actions and explain why these differences disqualify animals from being owed a set of inherent rights. I will then offer a thought experiment, "how we treat non-moral agents" to show how even without providing creatures capable of moral actions a set of inherent rights humans still have a duty to ensure animals are not mistreated. This duty will challenge the idea that we have a duty to animals for animal's sake, and I will show why a duty to animals for humans will still allow for animals to be treated in ways humans would not wish upon other humans. I will then put forward my theory on why humans owe it to humanity to treat animals with a basic respect.
The Presidency has many problems, but boredom is the least of them." -President Richard M. Nixon
THE CHIEF JUSTICE fails to note that it was only black school children who were so ordered; indee... more THE CHIEF JUSTICE fails to note that it was only black school children who were so ordered; indeed the history books do not tell stories of white children struggling to attend black school" -Justice John Paul Stevens in a dissenting opinion from Parents Involved v. Seattle School District No. 1