Philosophy of Gender, Race, and Sexuality


Order

Search forums
Subscribe to this forum      feed for this page

 1 - 5 / 5 
2014-08-18

So I'm currently writing my thesis, which Andy Clark is supervising, and all seems to be going well, but I was just wondering if people had any critical thoughts on the topic. My current abstract is below:


In The Extended Mind (1998, p18), Clark and Chalmers wrote that ‘‘As with any reconception of ourselves, [the extended mind] will have significant consequences. There are obvious consequences for philosophical views of the mind and for the methodology of research in cognitive science, but there will also be effects in the moral and social domains. It may be, for example, that interfering with someone’s environment will have the same moral significance as interfering with their person.’ (my italics). Little has been done to explore the consequences in these so-called moral and social domains. Problematically, the Extended Mind literature tends to focus on the role of the immediate environment on cognition, typically demonstrating the crucial role ... (read more)

Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/8658 Reply

2014-05-18
(1) That sentient life will one day come to an end is no solace for those sentients existing and suffering today.

(2) Whether it is better to have been or not to have been is a Cartesian koan I can ponder concrerning myself, but not one I have a right to decide concerning another sentient that is or has been; all the less right have I to create or support the creation of another sentient, out of nothing.

(3) Pain and pleasure are incommensurable; only pain is pertinent to moral musings like these: No number of orgasms (for me) compensates for one fallen sparrow; and, again, the sparrow’s pains or solaces are not for me to weigh -- for the sparrow.

(4) Christianity is particularly self-righteous and presumptuous on such questions, always ready to sanction temporal risk and suffering for the bodies of others for the salvation of their immaterial, immortal souls, sub specie aeternitatis.


Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/8166 Reply

2014-03-20
Abstract:

This article points out: “The combination of men and women in families is irrational.” Men and women are two different “species.” They only require sexual activities from each other, which are considered the less time-consuming activities during their lives. Sex must be treated as an enemy of marriage, due to its inferior and treacherous nature, and should not be included in marriage. Men and women should not live together in a family, since this institution must be understood as a permanent place for all family members and is expected to have a solid structure. The traditional family model is the result of men‟s enslavement of women and the exaggeration of the role of sex. This model creates an overwhelming advantage for men in selecting partners, proposing marriage, and other family activities. This article indicates: (i) The prominent family models existing between the group-marriage period and now are sex-based family models. (ii) Technical and social conditions nowadays r ... (read more)

2012-09-24
Hi, am reading about surrogate motherhood. it seems to be a good option for those who are not able to give birth to their child for some or other reason. but is it really so. I think there are three parties involved in the issue. one is the couple who want a child, doctor and the woman who is ready to give birth to someone else's child. there are ethical relations between these three. which has to be taken into consideration. In India they call it surrogacy tourism or newly upcoming business. but I don't think so. giving birth to a baby cannot be business at any cost. I wont say that its a holy, pure religious act but this activity have some dignity and therefore cannot be looked at as money making business. but misuse  of science have been an problem for long time and this is not an exception. As a student of philosophy can I look at the ethical aspects of the same. if yes from which perspective? is it OK if  I use utilitarian theory to talk the positive side of the same.     
Latest replies:
  • Ravi Singh, 2012-11-12 : Very nice topic for your project and I appreciate your initiative in this direction though commercials would overtake al... (read more)
Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/7298 Reply

2011-12-04
I've read recently Katherine M. Franke's paper, Theorizing Yes: An Essay on Feminism Law and Desire, in which she approaches the idea of repronormativity as a compulsory motherhood (parenthood actually, but she focuses on the feminist approach) In her paper Franke discusses how it is expected that women reproduce herselves and how this issue has been "taken for granted" in the femenist theory. She argues that not every woman actually wants to be a mother, and that this choice is actually like being heterosexual: social forces (heteronormativity) push women into motherhood. 
A month ago the ECHR decided in a case S.H.&Others vs. Austria that it is not against the European Convention on Human Rights to deny the use of ova of third person in In vitro fertilisation processes, the argument is that this could disrupt the "normal" development of the child because having two mothers can be specially awkward and it would pose many problems to establish kinship and parental rights.


This makes me wonder ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/6484 Reply

 1 - 5 / 5