You failed to answer the question implicit in the scenarios I presented.

Scenario 1:

Nothing done to fetus. Crying, wet and pouting lips searching for the mother's breast for milk. In other words, actual baby

Nothing was done to the baby. The baby's right there, you can feel it, smell it, hear it, see it, kiss it and so on.

Scenario 2:

Fetus aborted. No crying, no wetness, no pouting, in short no actual baby

If nothing was done to the actual baby where is the baby?

I did nothing to the cookie implies the cookie is still there.

I threw the cookie in the trash implies the cookie is not there.

Hmm - I thought the key focus of skepticism was valuing truth above most things. I think sometimes people mistake skepticism for denialism and cynicism. — Tom Storm

Skepticism (doubtful until evidence is furnished) is pointless in a community that values truth. It would be a baloney detection kit in an environment without baloney, as useless as a lie detector is on honest Abe (Lincoln).

You've lost me. — 180 Proof

I hope not! It's plain and simple: skepticism is useless, ergo a wasteful way to spend energy, around truthful people. There are no lies among good people. To watch out for them would be like expecting a dog to speak fluent English. Never gonna happen! Ergo, wasted energy. Ergo, skeptic turned off - background app open but not in use. Close app to save battery!

Nothing happened to the baby, there is no baby to begin with. — Amalac

Scenario 1:
Fetus. Did nothing. Actual baby born

Scenario 2:
Fetus. Aborted the fetus. No actual baby born

Nothing happened to the actual baby? :chin: :brow:

"To others?" – to whom?

And what does "value in itself" even mean? — 180 Proof

A value of a seed is to be found in its potential - what it is (a seed) is important of course but not as important as what it can be (say, a tree). This value is part of the seed itself - it, in a sense, defines a seed, gives it meaning as it were. We, the "others", recognize this value and this makes the seed valuable to us to the extent we need the seed to achieve an end (plant one in your compound).

Nothing about "faith" entails moral character or quality. Remember Kierkegaard's "teleological suspension of the ethical"? — 180 Proof

Perhaps I'm relying too much on folk "wisdom". In my defense, someone who believes with no or little regard to, as they say, hard evidence must've been part of a group that values truth and therefore, either don't lie or do so only rarely. Ergonomically speaking, it would be a waste of energy to be skeptical living in a community that values truth and so, over time living in one would eventually turn off the skeptic inside us. Valuing truth, as per philosophy, is good. It follows then faith is a good way to do a background check on people - those who have faith are generally good or more accurately better than those who don't.

A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." ~Freddy Zarathustra

↪TheMadFool I think "faith" only suggests that "the faithful" are gullible, placebo-junkies — 180 Proof

[The faithful are] Gullible, yes, but also good and Jesus was interested in the latter.

Value to whom? — 180 Proof

Value to itself and others.

I meant that this:
I can't do anything to the actual baby if I have an abortion i.e. if I destroy the fetus.
— TheMadFool

Does not mean the same as, nor implies:

an actual baby should be born even if I destroy the fetus.
— TheMadFool

It also does not mean:

So, if I destroy the fetus, I destroy the baby. That's what I meant from the get go.
— TheMadFool

Also, I'm still waiting for your response to the argument that cleaning scattered seeds is deforestation — Amalac

Ok. here's the deal.

There's a woman X with child.

Scenario 1:

X removes a painful tooth. X gives birth to the baby

X did something to her tooth. Nothing happened to the baby

Doing something to her tooth doesn't mean Doing something to the baby.

In other words, X can do something to the tooth & X can have a baby.

Scenario 2

X aborts the fetus. X doesn't give birth to the baby

X did something to the fetus. Something happened to the baby

In other words, it's not possible that X can do something to the fetus & X can have a baby (that's what abortion is all about).

If you say that doing something to the fetus does nothing to the baby then this should be possible: X does something to the fetus & X can have a baby (like X did something to the tooth and X can have a baby). This is impossible.

Ergo, To do something to the fetus implies to do something to the baby.

That means,

Not to do something to the baby implies not to do something to the fetus.

Simple!

No, that doesn't mean that at all (if you mean the same baby that the destroyed fetus would have become). — Amalac

So, if I destroy the fetus, I destroy the actual baby (the destroyed fetus would have become). That's what I meant from the get go.

1. You can't do anything to what doesn't exist (the actual baby doesn't exist, only the potential baby does). — Amalac

Ok. I can't do anything to the actual baby if I have an abortion i.e. if I destroy the fetus. That means an actual baby should be born even if I destroy the fetus. Does that happen? I've never heard of such an incident in my life.

I've already dealt with the bigger picture, in this thread, yesterday. As stated, this "detail" and "finer points" question is really just noise. Idle curiosity on my part. No big deal if you don't want to opine on it. — James Riley

No, no. I have to admit that the matter is more complex than can be dealt with in a single syllogism like the one I presented. Nevertheless, if the pro-choice position fails to make a stand that's internally consistent, it won't have many takers. Right? The pro-choice movement must first make sense, only then can it hope to gather supporters.

I was just challenging your unqualified statement.

As to the usual debate, consider the case where the fetus is killing the woman but she wouldn't want the baby, and would abort anyway if she otherwise could. In that case, does big government first ask the women "Hey, do you want the baby?" And then does big government vet the doctor's determination that the fetus is killing the woman? Does big government get to seek a second opinion from another doctor? Who vets the qualifications or objective abilities of that doctor? Big government?

Personally, I think this is all noise but I'm curious how the pro-life crowd would have big government pursue these issues, logistically — James Riley

These are important questions alright and they will need to be dealt with in the most reasonable manner possible. However, before we go into such detail, we need to get our hands on the bigger picture - let's not miss the woods for the trees. Once that's in the bag, we can discuss the finer points. That's how I feel we should tackle this problem.

No — Amalac

The logic is rather simple really. A woman doesn't want the actual baby when she visits a doctor to abort the fetus. In other words,

1. Doing something to the potential baby (fetus) implies doing something to the actual baby.

If 1 were false, destroying the fetus should have no effect on the baby which is just another way of saying you could destroy the fetus and still give birth to the baby. Preposterous!

@180 Proof

I've been mulling over this a bit. There seem to multiple ideas concerning epistemology itself over and above knowledge of God. Some of them being:

1. Faith: Some have argued that faith isn't blind faith (belief sans evidence of any kind) but look at the following:

29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed. — Wikipedia

2. Skepticism (Doubting Thomas). Related to points 1 and 3.

3. Miracles (evidence). Related to points 1 and 2.

Evidence for God seems to take the following form: First a miracle (Jesus' resurrection) and then evidence for that miracle (Doubting Thomas poking Jesus' wounds).

A miracle is by definition something that's gonna be tough to believe - we're all in skeptic mode. Ergo, it's in need of strong evidence and that's provided - the skeptic is silenced.

Jesus Christ was fully in the know about skeptics - they were his true adversaries and my hunch is all the miracles he performed were aimed at them (doubting Toms). The idea was to convince the doubtful lot, everything else would fall into place after that.

However, the quote above indicates that faith - blind faith - was deemed a notch above justification/evidence. This takes us to the very heart of Christianity and religions as an ethical system and the possibility of belief in God sans faith being indubitable evidence that a person is good at heart and is, for that reason, faerself worthy of our faith. To have faith (to not be concerned with evidence) is, for certain, foolish, setting oneself up for a fall but that's not the side of faith Jesus was interested in.

What Christ was moved by was the trusting nature of those with faith - it was/is an umistakable sign of a person's goodness. Second guessing Jesus, faith implied trusting nature which itself was the hallmark of goodness. Faithful people, though not too bright or didn't care, were good people, exactly the demographic the divine message of love and morality was aimed at. Jesus was in his elements walking among the faithful. A paradox makes its presence felt: The faithful believe minus proof. A leap of faith is proof of the goodness of the faithful. Thus to accept God without proof (faith) is proof that those who accept God without proof are good people.

Not always. Sometimes the baby isn't the issue. In fact, they might love to have the baby. But the fetus is killing them. — James Riley

Indeed! There's less controversy in those scenarios where the fetus is a danger to the mother's well-being. However, the abortion debate is usually not about such life and death situations but about women just being able to undergo a procedure to expel the fetus from the uterus even if only on a whim.

No, you destroy the potential baby (the fetus) — Amalac

1. If you destroy the fetus then you destroy the baby (that's what abortion is - potential)
— TheMadFool

No, you destroy the potential baby (the fetus) (I'm thinking about a 1 year old as an example of a baby, but perhaps you can tell me which age you are thinking of). A potential baby is not a baby, and you can't destroy what doesn't exist. — Amalac

What's the reason for destroying the fetus (the potential baby)? Destroying the fetus, destroys the baby, no? Why else have an abortion if this weren't true? Remember, a woman's concern is the actual baby, To do something about the actual baby, the woman does something to the potential baby. There really is no point arguing about this. It's crystal clear to me as it should be to you.

But I think 180's point with that analogy is that an actual tree is not the same as a potential tree, and so for instance we would not say that cleaning scattered seeds in a garden should be punished just as harshly as burning an equal amount of fully grown trees, because both are “deforesting”. — Amalac

1. If you destroy the fetus then you destroy the baby (that's what abortion is - potential)

2. If you can't destroy the baby then you can't destroy the fetus (1 contra)

3. You can't destroy the baby (pro-choicers agree)

Ergo,

4. You can't destroy the fetus (2, 3 MP)

3. If a fetus is not a baby then you can destroy the fetus (pro-choicer)

4. A fetus is not a baby (pro-choicer - ignore potential)

Ergo,

5. You can destroy the fetus

Ergo,

6. You can destroy the fetus (ignore potential, pro-choicers do that) and you can't destroy the fetus (potential, that's why pro-choicers want an abortion) (4, 5 Conj) [Contradiction: Paradox]

Seed analogy,

7. If you destroy the seed then you destroy the tree (potential)

8. If you can't destroy the tree then you can't destroy the seed (7 contra)

9. You can't destroy the tree (can't burn forests)

10. You can't destroy the seed (8, 9 MP)

11. If a seed is not a tree then you can destroy the seed (your claim)

12. A seed is not a tree (ignore potential)

13. You can destroy a seed (11, 12 MP)

14. You can destroy a seed (ignore potential) and you can't destroy a seed (potential) [Contradiction: Paradox]

I was thinking 1955 was about the peak of the lobotomy era. — Mark Nyquist

Oh! I didn't know that. All I know about 1955 is that Albert Einstein died that year. I guess God lobotomized the human race. :rofl: Makes sense since dear Albert was proving to be an intractable nuisance with his E = mc² which flagged off the nuclear arms race. The doomsday clock has been ticking ever since. We can't put the genie back in the bottle. Might as well make our 3 wishes.

Advocates of Electroconvulsive Therapy claim memory loss is caused by depression, not ECT itself. — Mark Nyquist

I concur. My memory has never been the same since I had melancholia for as long as I can "remember." It's a vicious cycle: sadness -> memory loss -> sadness -> memory loss ->.... I wonder if the ouroboros is allowed to complete the process of eating itself what would happen? A broken heart can't learn by heart!

I agree with you 'if you're not feeling the blues there's something wrong with you.' — Jack Cummins

I would've preferred it if I were wrong but, for better or worse, I'm not. One only needs to look at the two greatest role models of the world, one western, Jesus, and the other eastern, the Buddha to realize this. Both gentlemen were deeply concerned with suffering, one (the Buddha) was probably certifiable as reeling under bouts of major depression. The point? That people consider these two as ideals to be emulated leaves no room for doubt that people all over the world want us to feel the world's agony. The duo were later upgraded to divine beings and that's as big as hints get - empathy at that level no mere mortal can achieve.

Be glad you didn't have a bad day in 1955. — Mark Nyquist

What happened in 1955?

lobotomy — Mark Nyquist

Yes, it was a method of "treating" intractable cases. I forget the conditions it was reserved for.

Peer review and evidence based — Mark Nyquist

The idea behind this seems to be scientific validation. "If it's not science then it's nothing" is the mantra!

junk science — Mark Nyquist

This is an oxymoron.

Yes but you have no empirical basis for this. If it’s simply a gut feeling - who cares? — Xtrix

I care! To some extent that is.

No, if you can't get to sleep if you want to, you lack an ability. If you can get to sleep whenever you want to, you have one.
If you can destroy yourself if you want to, you have an ability. If you can't, you lack one.
If you can make mistakes if you want to, then you have an ability. If you can't, you lack one.
And so on.
Being unable to make mistakes is a lack of an ability.
God has the ability not to make any mistakes. That's an ability. He also has the ability to make them. That's another. — Bartricks

This line of thinking leads to a paradox and I have a hunch that you, like me, have a thing for paradoxes.

If God can make mistakes then God has an ability (your claim). However, if God can make mistakes, God can't always be right and that means God has a disability. Ergo, if God can make mistakes, God has an ability & God has a disability (contradiction). Note: the ability/disability refers to God being able to (can) make mistakes.

1. If God can make mistakes then God has an ability (your claim)

2. If God can make mistakes then God has a disability (see above)

Note: The ability/disability refers to the same thing - God can make mistakes

3.God can make mistakes (assume for reductio ad absurdum)

4. God has an ability (1, 3 MP)

5. God has a disability (2, 3 MP)

6. God has an ability and God has a disability (4, 5 Conj)

Ergo,

7. God can't make mistakes (3 - 6 reductio ad absurdum)

You proceed as follows,

8. If God can't make mistakes then God is not omnipotent (your claim)

9. God is omnipotent (definition of God)

Ergo,

10. God can make mistakes (8, 9 MT)

However, in my previous post I pointed out that cannot/can't can either possess a positive valence (power) or a negative valence (weakness). Your premise 8 assigns a negative valence (weakness) to can't instead of the correct positive valence (power). Ergo, your premise 8 is false.

A seed is not a tree. A sapling is a potential tree. A pre-26th week old fetus is not a person. A baby is a potential person. — 180 Proof

Yes but the value of a seed lies in its potential (tree), not in itself. Likewise, the value of a fetus is in its potential (baby). Pro-choicers and pro-lifers are on the same page on that score because neither makes sense if this weren't true.

The pro-choicer however equivocates between the seed (fetus) being a potential tree (baby) - wants to have an abortion - and not being a potential tree (fetus) - can have an abortion.

It doesn't matter anyway as consistency doesn't seem to be all that important.

My, my, the things we do for women. — TheMadFool

Gibberish. Pro-choicers neither make decisions to abort using this method nor give two shits whether or not the decision is formally consistent — 180 Proof

:fire: :fire: :fire: You taught me a valuable lesson Sir/Madam, as the case may be!

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood. — Ralph Waldo Emerson

Reminds me of the Terminator Movie Series/Franchise.

Skynet sends a terminator, T-1000, to kill young John Connor because young John Connor (not the leader) is a potential old John Connor (the leader of the resistance). This is abortion.

The resistance in turn, sends T-800 to protect young John Connor for the exact same reason - young John Connor (not a leader) is a potential old John Connor (the leader of the resistance) This is anti-abortion.

In other words, young John Connor (the fetus) = old John Connor (the baby) for both Skynet (pro-choicers) and the resistance (pro-lifers).

Skynet (pro-choicers) now can't claim to kill young John Connor (the fetus) isn't the same as killing old John Connor (the baby).

Gibberish. Pro-choicers neither make decisions to abort using this method nor give two shits whether or not the decision is formally consistent. They wish to stop their pregancies. Period. These women are moral agents (@ age of consent) and not wards of the state, their husbands or their families. — 180 Proof

That's a different line of thought. I do respect women, as much as any man can, may be I am one myself. Ergo, I fully support their rights and neither condone nor encourage any actions/policies that hold women at ransom. Women being the sex that carry pregnancies make that harder if not nearly impossible.

My argument is, if you'd like to know, based on the Aristotelian concept of potential.

A fetus is a potential baby. Pro-lifers recognize this fact. Since to do something to the fetus is to utlimately affect a baby and because a baby is a person, pro-lifers believe they shouldn't mess around with the fetus.

Pro-choicers too agree that a fetus is a potential baby, in fact their position doesn't make sense without this belief. They don't want the actual baby and hence they want to get rid of the potential baby (fetus).

However, that means, quite unequivocally, that to do something to the fetus implies doing something to the baby. That's precisely why pro-choicers want abortion. For better or worse, that means if you don't want to do something to the baby, you have to avoid doing things to the fetus (the potential baby). That's that.

Then there's the pro-choicer's reason why abortion is acceptable. A fetus isn't a baby and thus women are under no moral obligation to preserve it, keep it safe as it were.

The woman who wants to abort her pregnancy is then guilty of a contradiction: she wants an abortion because she's worried about the actual baby but she claims that she can terminate her pregnancy because the potential baby (the fetus) isn't an actual baby. The woman is basically flip-flopping between actual baby (she wants abortion) and potential baby (she can have an abortion). She can't do that because she equates the potential baby to an actual baby - that's why she wants an abortion - and in the same breath she claims a potential baby isn't an actual baby - that's why she believes she can have an abortion.

There is no "baby" until after the 26rh week (6 1/2 month) of pregnancy. :roll: — 180 Proof

I mentioned that point. See :point:

Then, pro-choicers go on to argue,

5. If the fetus is not a baby then I can do something to the fetus

6. The fetus is not a baby (pro-choicer)

7. I can do something to the fetus (5, 6 MP) — TheMadFool

The problem with pro-choice is that they agree to this :point:

1. If I do something to the fetus then I do something to the baby. (pro-choicers' key statement, the reason why they want abortion) — TheMadFool

which implies,

2. If I can't do something to the baby then I can't do something to the fetus (from 1, contrapositive: doing something to the fetus implies doing something to the baby) — TheMadFool

All of the above leads to,

8. I can do something to the fetus and I can't do something to the fetus (4, 7 Conj) [Contradiction: Paradox!] — TheMadFool

The Climate Change - Children Paradox

1. We care about our children (fact)

2. If we care about our children then we care about climate change (obvious)

3. We care about climate change (1, 2 MP)

4. We don't care about climate change (fact)

5. We care about climate change and we don't care about climate change (3, 4 Conj) [Contradiction: Paradox]

Ergo,

6. Either we don't care about our children or we care about climate change

The Pro-Choice Paradox

1. If I do something to the fetus then I do something to the baby. (pro-choicers' key statement, the reason why they want abortion)

2. If I can't do something to the baby then I can't do something to the fetus (from 1, contrapositive: doing something to the fetus implies doing something to the baby)

3. I can't do something to the baby (pro-choicers & pro-lifers agree, a baby is a person)

Ergo,

4. I can't do something to the fetus (2, 3 MP)

Then, pro-choicers go on to argue,

5. If the fetus is not a baby then I can do something to the fetus

6. The fetus is not a baby (pro-choicer)

7. I can do something to the fetus (5, 6 MP)

8. I can do something to the fetus and I can't do something to the fetus (4, 7 Conj) [Contradiction: Paradox!]

The pro-choice position is inconsistent! (8 is a contradiction).

I think it's more that they're treating normal as healthy and abnormal as sick — unenlightened

That's exactly what's wrong, at least when it comes to clinical depression. The world is depressing and if you're not feeling the blues then something's wrong with you - I believe a lack of empathy is an illness, no?

I am saying that judgement is a relation between mind and world (body, perhaps), of the species giving-a-fuck. — unenlightened

Precisely. See my comment above. Of course it all depends on which you think is normal, giving a fuck or not giving a fuck. Is it like the joke that ends with the line, "I have no more fucks to give"? Pain and suffering are soul-sapping, you're drained emotionally, after some time you can't cry any more.

Thus alien hand syndrome, for example consists of the judgement of foreignness and revulsion towards one's hand — unenlightened

I don't think that's accurate but hey, you have the right to an opinion. I respect that.



Believe you me, we're all just one bad day away from ending up in a mental asylum.

Hell is other people — Angelo

pessimistic — Angelo

optimistic — Angelo

I wonder why Sartre would say that. If taken literally, being alone would be heavenly but then loneliness is its own hell. Perhaps Sartre means to say that simply being in a crowd of people, no matter how large, doesn't guarantee meaningful (better) relationships or that if one really examines the facts well, one is in fact truly alone (read lonely) and relationships no matter how deep or shallow they appear to us are at the end of the day illusory. Such a reading of Sartre's statement would square with what I said earlier, "being alone is heavenly" for the simple reason that we wouldn't have to put up with, deal with, the pain/dissatisfaction that are part and parcel of relationships, these negative effects originating in the optimistic attitude towards relationships.

Does that mean we should be pessimistic about relationships ("Hell is other people" - Sartre) ? That's the other extreme and prima facie seems to be the most reasonable course of action. However, in adopting pessimism in this regard completely ignores a crucial aspect about our beliefs regarding relationships - we want the illusion to be true, we want meaningful relationships to be real even though they're few and far between. If we want such, I suppose we can say that if given the opportunity, we will make an effort to achieve it.

Hence, my suggestion,

Hope for the best. Expect the worst — Mel Brooks

Hoping for the best acknowledges our desire for meaningful (better) relationships and expecting the worst reflects reality as it is, disappointment after disappointment.

love — Angelo

As for love, it's a relationship and whatever I wrote above applies to it.

I suppose it all boils down to the simple fact that social existence, relationships, is/are not about being with someone (real relationship) but actually about not being alone (illusory relationship). :chin:

The pathogenic model deceives the unwary philosopher into imagining that illness is something other than the judgement of the mind. — unenlightened

It's all in your mind.

Bullseye! I recall writing in another thread that psychiatry and psychology perhaps has got the wrong end of the stick. For instance, given the magnitude of the suffering extant in the world, how callous people are to it, a "normal" person should be in the grips of severe depression and an "abnormal" person should be completely at ease with it. Shrinks and psychologists are looking at the world upside-down. They're treating the normal as abnormal and vice versa. :fear: :grimace:

A world without emotions... :chin:

So, neither happiness nor suffering. Well, with these two things gone, utilitarianism goes out the window. Kantian ethics would still apply though - it basically ignores the consequences of actions (happiness/sorrow). In fact, since we're talking about ethics vis-à-vis rationality, Kant's wish to render morality an extension of logic seems to be fit like a glove - Kant was of the opinion that immorality was a violation of the law of noncontradiction. Assuming Kant's ethics are put into effect, a world sans emotions would be good.

Too, virtue ethics would also find a niche in a feelingless world for the simple reason that the highest virtue is reason - Kant would've approved. If virtue ethics differs from Kantian ethics, it's only in the sense that in the former, the feelings of affected parties in a moral issue might need to be given proper weightage. However, with emotions out of the equation, both virtue ethics and Kantian ethics will converge on rationality/reason as the cornerstone of morality.

Interestingly, we must be extra cautious with Christianity - it's a marriage between emotions (hedonic heaven & hell) and rationality (Kantian duty ethics - the decalogue). We can separate the two, keep one and throw the other out.

Voila! We have a world devoid of all emotions and good to boot. I'll end with a question, "would a world of sentient AIs that can't emote be a moral world?" It looks like Kant (deontology) and Socrates (virtue ethics) though separated by nearly one-and-a-half thousand years were laying down the groundwork for a world populated by AI (artificial intelligence) units, each one of which would have, in Hermione Granger's view, "the emotional range of a teaspoon." We're basically developing machine-apt ethical models. :chin:

Most artist and talkers are neurotic as hell! — Protagoras

Oh well, nobody's perfect.

The perfect is the enemy of the good — Christopher Hitchens

Give them the third best to go on with; the second best comes too late, the best never comes — Robert Watson-Watt

That said philosophy science and secularism are also therapies to cope with the world. — Protagoras

I'll keep that in mind. Great observation!

Most of the planet suffers from anxiety. — Protagoras

Sad but (probably) true.

Does everything have to be a psychological disorder these days? — Wise Old Lady

Freedom. Being an individualist and somewhat of a recluse this is one of my most important attributes. This can be a complicated subject to fully define as it applies to beings but the basic idea is: You can do any thing you want as long as you do not interfere with someone else's freedom.
No taxes (money)
Free quality health care for everyone (money)
100% employment opportunities (money) — RoadWarrior9

I've bolded some important words/concepts and what I feel is the essence of all your recommendations. These words/concepts are FREE & MONEY. You want to give people money (employment) but you want to give away one of the reasons they need money (health) for free. It seems a bit confused at first but I guess you want people to be able spend their money for other stuff like buying luxury items, recreational activities, etc. Not a bad idea at all.

Nonetheless, it seems possible to do away with one of the two recommendations completely i.e. we can make everything free or give people all the money they need. I'm not an economist and my knowledge of economics is almost nil; so I don't know how feasible my suggestions are but you did say to ignore the practical aspects of the problem.

I suppose a case can be made that making some things free and also put in place a functional wage system is having the best of both worlds but it definitely feels more complicated than the aforementioned options I presented. I guess my proposal would be met with, "sigh! I wish it were that simple."

Regarding freedom, I'm all for it. The money and "free" stuff you believe are attributes of a (good) human civilization would be pointless without freedom of some kind. I second the motion without the slightest doubt.

I'll leave you with a short clip from the animation movie Kungfu Panda.



and a song

To err is human, to forgive divine — Alexander Pope

On a more serious note, I believe there's an important issue underlying @Bartricks question, "Can God make mistakes?" Let's call the witnesses, shall we? 1. Hypnos (sleep) and 2. Thanatos (death).

Consider now the following:
1. X can sleep (the ability to sleep has a positive valence)
2. X can die (mortality is a disability, has a negative valence)
3. X can't sleep (X has a disability, negative valence)
4. X can't die (X is immortal, an ability, positive valence)

As you can see, X can't do Y can either be a positive trait (X can't die - immortality is an ability) or a negative trait (X can't sleep - insomnia is a disability).

You're equivocating between these two ways of looking at CANNOT/CAN'T. God's omnipotency is enhanced rather than diminished if God can't make mistakes.

The court thanks the witnesses for their cooperation. I rest my case!

Are you saying Buddhism or religion are a treatment for mental conditions? — Mark Nyquist

Yes! Religions, by and large, seem to be non-pharmaceutical modes of treating pain (to some degree) and suffering (to a greater extent). Mental reorientation/recalibration (software changes) is quite effective in alleviating/eliminating clinical depression or so the claim is.

It kinda makes sense you know, especially Buddhism and whatever other religion inspired it - Maya (the world as an illusion) sounds exactly like delusions in psychiatry as found in schizophrenia and a host of other mental illnesses. Buddhism strives to, aims to, free our minds from Maya (delusions) just like psychiatrists but the methodology differs - Buddhism, religions in general I suppose, basically offers a software package while psychiatry is, bottom line, hardware modding.

Paradoxes are markers for failure — Mark Nyquist

I must admit I didn't see it that way although I suppose a paradox is by definition an inconsistency.

It certainly does! I doubt any type of dualism would get far in most psychiatry programs (academic) but psychosis cases always involve mental content. So, to do it right, both the physical brain should be considered and also the physically contained mental content. There is a problem with the psychiatric profession viewing dualism as the physical and the non-physical and discounting the non-physical. A better wording of the problem would be the physical brain and the physical brains mental content.
The profession has done a poor job on the fundamentals.
I hope that's on topic. I should add that some forms of dualism should not be considered such as stand alone non-physical models (because they are bad models). — Mark Nyquist

Buddhism - a treatment for depression?

Religion is the opium of the maases. — Karl Marx

Well spotted TMF. As you rightly pointed out, they are not the typical classical logical statements at all. They are more the sort of example cases from the Informal Logic.
But my point was to demonstrate, how daily life dialogues, intentions, dispositions and thoughts are like, and trying to convert them into the Symbolic Logic and Truth Table formats doesn't work. — Corvus

You're right but, as some say, we seem to have run out of options. Thanks though for the word of caution. I'll be more careful in the future.