You are conflating specific moral beliefs with logical truth of a claim. Take for example Mill's explanation of offense-- freedom from assault, the right to ban intoxication in public, the right to ban smoking inside buildings, etc. -- the Harm Principle.Therefore, if we cannot produce correct axioms, then we must have no objectively correct moral claims.
However, there is something implicit in this assertion; there could be multiple reasons we cannot produce correct moral axioms: — ToothyMaw
I couldn't think of any other reason for this syndrome than the idea that those surveyed, or I guess those that represent us all, thought that "making profit" just don't mesh with the environment -- the default thinking is that people are immoral.When everyday people were surveyed - and I believe these results have been replicated - people who are given the ‘Harm’ scenario say the CEO were, and by a large majority, more likely to think to bring about the side effect intentionally. On the flip side, people given the ‘Help’ scenario were very likely to think the CEO brought about that scenario unintentionally.
There is currently no general consensus as for why this is, but the tendency is to frame it as a difference between morality of the two scenarios. What do you think? — invizzy
Yes, the family unit has the right to ban some reading materials from their household. If you or an organization starts censoring the family unit of that banning, then where does that leave all of us?Is there any justification for censorship of any kind? — Vera Mont
For the last 100 years, it's the role of the individual in society.What has philosophy answered for use [sic] in the previous 100 years? — TiredThinker
While I appreciate this very noble theorizing or speculating, this is highly intractable to even be called a theory. Do we know how information get scrambled in one's mind? I mean, we have distortion of information based on the five senses -- senses are fallible. We can be deceived. At the same time, we sometimes think erroneously because we tend to jump to conclusions with not enough information. But all these have external causes.However, it's possible to have rapid outbreaks of false information on this network that can't self correct in real time. For a person experiencing this rapid onset, there would be a sense that his biology is acting normally but at extreme activity levels (in an attempt to self correct) but information seems to be scrambled and erratic, unpredictable compared to normal. And when he arrives for professional psychiatric treatment he will be told his biology is failing and requires medication. — Mark Nyquist
No, I disagree with this analogy. Virus are tractable, they are predictable, otherwise we stand no chance in stopping them. I don't care if this is an organism or a computer virus.To get a mental image of this, imagine a virus on a computer network. Agent Based Models are a way to computer model this and simple models can show progression of a virus moving from node to node on networks with some nodes affected and other nodes unaffected. In biological brains the biology can be functioning normally but the corrupted networks of mental content are the cause of the abnormal condition. — Mark Nyquist
On the question of whether sociopaths are born, not made, I believe if we looked at the historical evidence, most, if not all, of them showed signs that it's always been in them, which means they were born with that trait. Ted Bundy, as an example, at one point tried to convince the public that he wasn't, that he got to be that way because of his own doing -- obsession with sexual violence on film. He claimed he grew up in a normal family environment. etc. This is all bullshit. (though it was true that he didn't suffer from abuse, or that he grew up in a normal family) If you looked at the footages of his capture, when he was being moved from one location to another, or just walking to the courtroom escorted by the police, you'd see how he didn't have command of his mind. Somehow, this man, during his interview, wanted so much to show a side of him that's sophisticated and educated. A far cry from the irrationality of how he victimized those women.This is pretty much where I was heading. Do you think that is just a congenital or organic deficiency? Or did they lose or renounce the ability to be rational? — Pantagruel
If thinking is strategic, is it therefore also rational? Is it possible to be a criminal, and also rational, in the strictest sense of the word? What about reasonable? — Pantagruel
I was thinking of a criminal. Who can have high situational-awareness and make complex plans. But is that sufficient to rationality? — Pantagruel
I admired your paintings. Also the kale.Oil painting — praxis
:grin:In my circles, RPG is rocket propelled grenade. — James Riley
A while back, if someone asked me the same question in the OP, I would have said that automation will carry us all to the sunrise and a happy ending.First, what's a job marketplace but people selling their time and strength and skill to other people? How does one assess its state of health?
And then: What else happens when automation eliminates jobs? More goods are produced, faster. More resources are used up faster. more waste is produced and released into the air, water and land faster. It literally eats the planet. Meanwhile, the people who have no jobs have no income. So who's buying all that product? Does it go straight from the factory into the landfill, like the packaging it comes in? People have to clean up the waste. — Vera Mont
:sweat:Man, as a person just getting into philosophy, this worries me. If I do my best in constructing an argument that happens to be sorta shitty due to my lack of experience, should I expect to be reamed like this? Is this kind of conduct expected around here? — Matt E
The way to settle it is to farm people for food also. Then let's talk ethics. People complain about overpopulation, then why not gather a group of people and hunt them for sports? Yes, this sounds crazy -- but is it really?What then are we to make of eating meat? How could we compromise and settle everyone's concerns surrounding the ethics of meat? — Benj96
I would say abnormal. You're not supposed to feel that way when it comes to thinking about what lies ahead, even though you could be pretty much correct. The reason is because we have an internal mechanism -- stages, if you will -- which protects us from existential anxiety. Apparently, it's in the brain, this protector.Is this irrational of me? Or is this a rational confrontation of what is? Is the collective turning our heads away the true irrationality, the enabler of this crisis? — hypericin
At the risk of eschewing other things involved in this consideration, I'd say that in some ways, animals do have a sense of time passage. Just observe the animals in the wild. The pups would wait for the mother to come back, but once it's taken too long and no mom in sight, they would wander off, against the instruction. Same with the mother -- looking for a lost pup and when to give up relies on time. It isn't that the mother didn't find the pup, it is that time tells the mother to give up.Thomas Mann tried to explain that the main difference between humans and other species is realization of change due to the pass of time. — javi2541997
So says the man who came from being born into this world and has only limited time. If humans are immortal, which is what it's about, we wouldn't know what "beginning" is. We're just are here. Thoughts of such nature wouldn't register in our immortal minds. He can speak of "transitoriness" because that is his nature, our nature. But that's all he can speak of.Without transitoriness, without beginning or end, birth or death, there is no time, either. Timelessness — in the sense of time never ending, never beginning — is a stagnant nothing. It is absolutely uninteresting. — javi2541997
lol.Why? Larry seems like a good one to pick, no? Assholes that make great X output still make great X output.. Isn't X output that is useful to society important? — schopenhauer1
I will not pick any of them.That's really simplistic, and I'm not asking you to bring in those theories, but that's just an example of how to build an argument around one or the other. — schopenhauer1
What's your point?That's because you think you can control Larry or expect anything he can throw at you. I'm sure Larry would choose you too. — Outlander
At the behest of the likes of Nagel and Rawls, I'll mention here the Archimedian point which argues that there is indeed a rational observer whose standpoint can provide an objective account of what's happening in the world.Satisfaction can only truly happen by transcending one's nature of willing. According to him [Schopenhauer], this requires denying the Will and becoming an ascetic along the lines of a Jainist or something of that nature. The ultimate fate would be to starve oneself to death peacefully. — schopenhauer1
Here in lies the contention. You're calling it a fact. But for others, it's a point of view.Perhaps they don't want you to wake them up to this fact. Perhaps they liked their ignorance. — schopenhauer1
However, it isn't a particular war that a pessimist would care about but the seemingly pervasive aspect of conflict and war in human society, governments, and history. It seems like a feature or an irradicable bug. — schopenhauer1
I wrote a previous thread about technology, for example. In that one, I described the pervasive and inescapable nature of the fact that not all humans can truly participate in creating the technology that sustains them. — schopenhauer1
I wrote in another thread about the inability to move to another form of living. This is a pervasive and inescapable feature of being born. We cannot really change the set of choices and harms presented to us. — schopenhauer1
They come together -- function and form. But function is felt, not heard. This is how I listen to music. Of course, when all you could hear is the shredding of the guitar, drowning out all the other sounds onstage, that distorts the harmonic quality of the whole act and then you start thinking art has deteriorated. Well yes, in that regard and at that moment.Function is key signatures, time signatures, transpositions, modes, composition forms, approaches to improvisation, proper physical technique (ways to play the piano, hold drum sticks, strum a guitar, etc). Form is more the sound of it; do you like a silky blues guitar tone or a jarring metal tone? Do you prefer Baroque music or Romantic era? Do you like the chill vibe of rock steady or the paranoia of industrial metal? — Noble Dust
And there are no animal psychiatrists. Diagnosing a mental illness in humans requires the human mind of a trained individual.How come there are no documented cases of insanity in wild animals? Also, there are no animal philosophers. — Agent Smith
Mon dieu!By confusing ‘immoral’ intent with a different interpretive understanding of the world, we justify our condemnation , punishment and even violence against them, but we never succeed in understanding how differently their world looked to them than to us. — Joshs
An example of that is monopoly, which is still very much alive today but hidden behind, for example, exclusive contracts and technological "obsolescence".The fact that someone gets rich does not inhibit the poor guy from getting rich. Where it often can go wrong is that the rich guy makes the poor guy depend on him for certain goods, services or needs. — Deus
You're watching too much movies.Some have extolled the message that greed is good. — Joshs
And an example of this is...what?Unless of course labels like ‘greed’ are our attempts to blame others for our failure to understand situations that seem justified from the ‘greedy’ one’s vantage. — Joshs
If we could neutralize greed, then we can start looking towards higher human ideals. Until then, it's a fight to the bitter end.Is this unequivocal balance of good and bad an inherent human trait or is something that can be tackled towards higher human ideals? — Deus
Yes, I agree. The mistake is to assume the universe was created to raise human emotions. — jgill
Yes, the most affected are small employers and government employers. I've worked in different firms and I've seen how productivity had gone down, but somehow, more employees are needed to work on scaled down quantity of work. I've seen a workplace where flexibility is allowed, but often this flexibility is abused and doesn't help the employees fall in love with their jobs.Thank you for mentioning the economic cost of all these hours spent on cell phones and social media. I guess small employers and gov jobs are the most affected.
It would be interesting to see any studies which give a picture of the economic cost & economic gains of the social media. We hear mostly about the jobs & opportunities created by the social media and Silicon Valley companies. But I think you are right to emphasize the cost of these activities. — Eros1982
But I’m not talking about a model, which is an epistemological tool. I’m talking about mathematics itself, that our universe (and others) is, at the most fundamental level, a mathematical structure. — noAxioms
That mathematical models of the universe is just that -- no actual "reality" was harmed in the making of a model. No fire of life can be felt within a mathematical model. We cannot answer the normative questions such as "why is there a universe?"But what else is meant by the "breathes fire", "makes a universe", "should be a universe", and "bother of existing"?
If my interpretation of those words is a bit overzealous, then what did Hawking actually mean by them?What for instance, other than the ontological property itself, would distinguish two sets of rules and equations, one which exists, has fire breathed into it, and the other doesn't exist, no fire, etc. Suppose they're even the same empirical thing. — noAxioms