The Christian Vanguard

In rationality and decision theory, we have the Maximin principle, which states that we look at the worst possible outcomes of every act, and choose the act which produces the least worst outcome. So, if I have to choose between two investments, say Apple and Google, and if the worst case scenario for my Apple investment is I lose $100 and the worst case scenario for my Google investment is that I lose $200, then under the Maximin principle, I should choose to invest in Apple over Google. That is, if course, if I want to minimize my losses.  There is something pessimistic about the Maximin principle. If for example, the best case scenario for my Google investment is that I profit 1 million dollars and the best case scenario for my Apple investment is I profit 5 thousand dollars, then we may be rational to choose Google over Apple. But I want to focus on the pessimism because I get the sense that many people are pessimistic about politics and the election these days. So, can the pes...

We have all been, or know someone who has been, "emotional." What does this mean? That they have some strong emotions, yes, but that alone cannot be a good answer. When a groom cries when he sees his bride walk down the aisle has some strong emotions, but we wouldn't say he is "being emotional." When a parents loses their child, she may cry but we wouldn't say that she should stop "being emotional." Contrast this with the interchangeable phrase "be rational." Likewise, we do not say that one ought not have emotions and be nothing but rational. This is an even worse mistake. So what do we mean?  Observe what happens when someone is "being emotional." Say Eve breaks up with Adam. Adam doesn't like this, so what Adam does is lash out. He lashes out in anger because it feels right to him. But is lashing out the correct thing to do? Ask Adam, and he will do one of two things: he will say admit that it is not the right thing,...

About a week ago, the topic of discussion for Philosophy club was animal rights. One member, whose name I cannot recall, gave a brief presentation on why animals have rights, and I got up, gave a brief explanation as to why they do not, and we all had a good discussion from there. This is just an outline of my talk, I deviated and gave some examples, and I took questions as I spoke. But this was requested by a friend, so, here it is. 

There is this common saying that once you cease desiring a thing, you will then obtain it. A friend recently told me that I will finally have a girlfriend when I stop looking for one. This seems paradoxical. Take some other desire, like the well-being of your child. Then, some maniac who likes to see you suffer tortures your child because he will get the response desired from you. However, when he sees that once you become indifferent to your child's well-being, he stops torturing your child. So, what is the right thing here to do? In the same way, there is a sense in which pursuing marriage and pursuing a relationship is a good thing, like pursuing the well-being of your child is a good thing, and so the refusal to pursue that good is an immoral thing to do. One difference that can be appealed to here is that one has a duty to your child, but not a duty to pursuing a relationship, so the dilemma doesn't exist in not wanting to want to be in a relationship (whoa...meta). O...