What about that science teacher who gave me a 70 instead of a 90 on my project in sixth grade because he thought it would push me harder? Wouldn't I be deserving of a 90?

OK, but if different humans (which will be different by definition) will be deemed to have different degrees of importance, how does one prevent justifying things such as slave ownership? — javra

I don't recall saying that. Could you demonstrate where I implied this?

I'm sorry If i did; the basis of my point is to assess our differences AS an equalizing property. As well, the variable treatment of all is in the pursuit of contentment, so it wouldn't necessarily describe varying degrees of importance...

Well, I don't know. I haven't read the US constitution before so I wouldn't be able to give a practical explanation of my thoughts, but I think my main idea is that I would like for the constitution to perform initially malleable, not apply it later. That way we can deal with situations according to their circumstances themselves, and not on something that was written that was presupposed to be true.

Heres an example: if there was a rule in a school that you MUST use the stairs and not the elevator, would someone in a wheelchair still be applicable to the rule? No! You would provide an intelligent bias, to make his QOL better. i.e, people in his case are now allowed to use the elevator.

I just think we need some malleability in the way we treat others.

No, I just think that some rules just are not applicable to everyone, and requires an intelligent/positive biases to suit their needs.

Forgive me if I interpreted wrong but your question was:

To then rephrase, on what grounds should all humans be subjected to the same codified consequences to conduct if not the grounds that all types of humans (types differing in things such as average skin color, and so forth) nevertheless are granted to have the same degree of inherent importance? — javra

In which i disagree this initial premise, by my statement above:

Im my opinion you shouldn't base equality of rights on value. I think you should base equality on the equal differential/personalization of rights, e.g because we are all different we are all equal (in that regard). — john27

(i.e, I don't believe in codified consequence).

Which is why i believed my answer here sufficed:

Well of course, you would use that statement in moderation, or in some specific parameter that renders it useful. — john27

Because this would seem to acknowledge its inherent deficit which you had pointed out (human treating rock equally), in a concise manner that still makes it applicable.

This is equivocating "the degree of importance given to something" with mathematical notions of value. — javra

Er...not exactly. I was trying to describe how same ≠ equal.

This doesn't seem to suffice. Humans are different from rocks, but the fact that the two are different does not thereby make humans and rocks equal - else, the same - in any regard relevant to equal rights. — javra

Well of course, you would use that statement in moderation, or in some specific parameter that renders it useful.

It was a book around a town that was struggling with spirituality. Apocalyptic in a very minute sense.

Which ends which...I guess it is pretty paradoxical.

Forgive me if I misconstrue your words, but I don't exactly understand how the completion/end of a thing results in its purpose. I mean, It's been long said that what matters is the journey, not the destination.

How would equality in value translate into equality in rights? For example, I could have 1+3=4, and 2+2=4. Two identical values but with blaring differences. In this case both individuals, even though they bring the same value would have to be treated differently.

Im my opinion you shouldn't base equality of rights on value. I think you should base equality on the equal differential/personalization of rights, e.g because we are all different we are all equal (in that regard).

:up:

Mm, I would agree with your general statement, but disagree with the way you put it. I think Human inequality is natural, just not a needed variable when we demand ethical questions.

Death and taxes.

Other than that old saying, nothing really comes to mind.

Sorry, i was pretty busy this week. On a train to Lyon right now actually.

I would agree.

Yeah, seeing as my intuition has no rational behind it. I'm inclined to believe what we had just discussed, however i'm trapped by a sentiment.

My intuition tells me yes, he would be greatly impaired, but I don't know what to tell you Leghorn; we had already established belief as non-important. Would you like to revisit the question perhaps?

1 "name the trait" — Kaz1983

2. "a pig is not equal to a human" — Kaz1983

3. "the circle of life" — Kaz1983

All these statements believed to be false create great incentive for me to treat the adversary not as an animal separate, but as a human.

Henceforth, we can now apply further axioms that are non contradictory to the initial statement, however are utilized creatively to realize certain informational discrepancies.

Statement One:

I 1. (name the trait) de-substantializes attributes in an ethical setting. In other words, it equalizes the differentiating attributes, in relation to an ethical regard. Since an equalization takes place, It should be of no concern should I apply a comprehension level similar to ours, to the individual, since traits are of no quantitative value, in correlation to ethics.

We choose to relate ethics on whom we deem similar. equalizing the traits makes us similar. Therefore, humanitarian ethics are now permissive, to an extent.

Statement Two:

Meat is generated from death. Therefore, the question further clarifies into:
Can I kill a man ethically?

And then you could just ask the Truman question, harvest natural/satisfactory deaths without employing torturous activity, and boom, meat is ethical.

Peace and calm is a state of mind that we use to describe stillness. I don't think we can necessarily perpetuate that same sentiment in the real world though. Too much movement.

Well, yes, but I had thought that we had earlier established that the selfhood is not subject to belief, and so therefore chance that would impact the belief on my selfhood, would have no impact on the question of whom, ergo, chance does not affect selfhood/not subject to chance.

I would agree with that.

Well, to assess something as mine is to be possessive; and possessive is contradictory too benevolence. In other words, Taken, and Given, are the two main ideas given within this context. Give is to lack control in the exchange, to take is to assess control, so I'm going to postulate that when you say "are these thoughts mine?" You mean to incline in a form of possessive behaviour, to assess control over a thought. Likewise, to assess control over a thing, whether it be something or someone else, is indicative of free will, so for the sake of simplifying things (and my argument :P) i'm just going to say that free will exists in this scenario.

Now to take control of something in my belief is to control its aspects, or its properties. With that established, we can now take a look at the scenario. This scenario you proposed:

"do I take credit for my athletic abilities?"

Well, the ability was henceforth "given" to you. That illustrates a lack of control. However, this ability is constrained by a parameter, specifically athleticism. In other words, you need a use to portray your ability. This use is considered possessive, and non reliant on given factors.

This begs the question: If I put my abilities to use, do I control them?

Well, I don't really know. Maybe this helped a little bit though.

Isn't space just an observable lack of things in a select parameter? I wouldn't see how its infinite malleability would affect its physical properties. I mean, I can divide a chocolate chip cookie infinitely.
That wouldn't necessarily mean its infinite, nor would that make the finiteness of its particles chaotic.

I wouldn't necessarily think so anyway.

:wink:

Is the end of religion considered an apocalyptic view?

I was thinking of a book around apocalypse's and it came to mind.

I know, I know. I shouldn't have said it.

My main problem is that it's much too polarizing for my taste. The good/evil dynamic absolutely consumes everything in its path, leaving no space for situational nuances, and seldom carries within itself something that is even slightly unique.

It is as well incredibly confrontational. No space for harmonics; It's pure, it's raw, and one side is going to win, no matter what. No room for compromise.

Hm. Could you give an example of an objective reason that would permit one to verify his selfhood?

I'm interested in the parameters, thats all.

Well, she's the village pass-around for a reason.

Goldilocks is the name of the game, my friend.

I guess it would seem so.

With such an ambiguous reference to the end times, coupled with my general lack of understanding, I must say I'm not exactly incentivized to describe my thoughts.

However stories... Stories can say quite a bit, and sometimes breath life into these unnatural sentiments we have in our day to day life.

We have a short story competition going on right now. Since you seem like a rather fine writer, perhaps just give us a little short tale regarding this heralding winter, that we can enjoy and perhaps, analyze?

We're happy because its just a story, and you're happy because now, an abundance of philosophical firewood sits aside you at your leisure, ready to display its warmth.

Of course you don't have to. But in my opinion these sort of discussions are best conversed in literary manner.

I guess at the end of it, we're all just some lonely cavemen.

Ooga oo.

*I would agree.

I would think that is definitely plausible, yes. Sometimes people believe certain attributes are essential to themselves, even if they don't have it/can't obtain it.

i.e plastic surgery, and all that nonsense.

I now have a compelling need to edit my previous post...

I think regarding the senses, so long as you view them as something of utmost import (in relation to your character), its displacement results in the diminishment of the perception of yourself.

However, it is equally right to say that as long as you don't view these attributes essential to yourself, (e.g I would have turned out the same no matter if I was blind or deaf) then they are of no relation to your persona.

They are equally essential, but It is much more easier on my brain to imagine a dark world than a world without sound. Therefore it comes harder to me to stipulate, whether or not a loss of sound would be essential to my character.

Guess I'm on the right track. Although i should warn you the path of mediocrity is long and hard; it leaves a substantial amount of regret in its wonderful wake.

Mm...I think if I were to lose my hearing, I'd definitely perform/act in a different way than normal... I may be me, but changed severely.

I would volunteer, but my wood doesn't burn very brightly. Sorry mate.

I guess humans are constrained by inequality one way or another.

I state my opinion because I get a bubbly feeling in my gut that says: Say it, or wallow in dissatisfaction!
Its never had to do anything with anger/annoyance.

In fact, I have never really cared about whether I was right or wrong. I just like to talk a lot.

Also wouldn't this belief state that all opinions are reactionary? What about opinions that start a conversation?