Arbitrary Transfers (AT)
Can work against consumers...
Here's an example,

A toaster costs 10 dollars wholesale.
A retailer marks it up to 11 and sells to a consumer.
The 11 dollars is the nessecary transfer (NT) for the transaction to occur.

If the retainer sells for 12 dollars, the price could be understood as 11 dollars (NT) and 1 dollar (AT).

That means the consumer was the burden bearer of the AT and the retailer was the beneficiary. — Mark Nyquist

:up: Luxury goods are those. Also, brand names create ATs.

Same factory and production processes for the same goods, but packaged, labeled, and distributed differently (different demographics distribution, for example) create AT.

It is not a secret that the financial sectors, where high net worth consumers flocks, would have almost no limit on what they could charge for their services.

Arbitrary because not all players have control... — Mark Nyquist

Here your description is vulnerable because almost everything we transact in we are not in control. Bundles and package deals remove the control of consumers, for example.
But most especially those charges sanctioned by government agencies. Property taxes and income taxes.

But how come no one is talking about HOA (homeowerns' association)? The organization that sets the monthly fee for homeowners living in certain communities. They have a lot of power over the homeowners -- they could, at times, take your property away. This fee is forever and nonnegotiable.

If arbitrary transfers are used to increase production, such as in China, they might have a geopolitical significance or for social programs as in ... The West...a disadvantage. — Mark Nyquist

Why do you think that if used for social programs, it is a disadvantage?

The ethics of care stem from a deeper urge than a ratiocination of a derived Kantian categorical imperative towards duty. — Shawn

If that's how you see it, then I will not try to convince you.

Not to sound snide; but, what about the ethics of care, by philosophers such as Carol Gilligan and Nel Noddings? The very centerpiece of ethics has been the role of the mother or teacher in one's life, without which a very crude form of ethics would develop. — Shawn

Why would you preface your post with "Not to sound snide/.."? This is a discussion forum, so, I totally understand if you disagree.

Actually, if you read up on of ethics of care, the same theme runs though their arguments. Because, again, ask yourself, do you need to feel empathy before you decide on the ethical course of action? Benevolence is an act that does not wait on the emotion of compassion. Same with respect -- you might have angered me and insulted me, and spoke of lies about me, but I will still exercise my sense of duty and obligation to act in such a way that I do not violate your essence as a human being.

Mankind can only hope that there is enough empathy and compassion within itself to recognize our shared struggles. Without such an attitude, what more is existence; but, a show of vanity and pride. — Shawn

This is a common attitude in the discussion of morality among the forum members. And I think this is erroneous because it misses the main foundation of ethics and morality.
Philosophers such as Kant, JS Mill, J. Rawls, and most likely Nietzsche laid down the foundation of their conception of morality. It is duty and obligation, not compassion, that is the basis of the philosophical argument for morality and ethics.

Ask yourself -- do you have compassion towards your enemies, say a cruel regime? No? So, do you consider them in your deliberation of ethics? Or do you only consider those for whom you feel compassion? This is really the question you should be asking.

I think the above aphorismic sentiment is a common theme in Schopenhauer's work. The older I become the more perplexed I am with regards to how ethical questions or even the lack of concern with ethics stems from a wrong disposition towards life. — Shawn

I think the bigger problem is the misunderstanding of what ethics and morality is.

What is the central theme of ethics for the discussion of ethics to begin or start to take place? — Shawn

Duty, obligation, and justice.

Could we know this "inside knowledge"? — LFranc

No, unfortunately not.

Hopefully, Biden will be eased out of the race and replaced by a more worthy opponent for Trump. Kamala Harris is good at reading teleprompters, but does she have presence of mind and ability to argue off the cuff? — jgill

And others I did not tag here:

So, may I ask, who's the next best thing to replace Biden now that he contracted covid? Is it too late to find a good one? Josh Shapiro, Wes Moore, Andy Beshear, Gavin Newsom?

I cannot believe what's happening in the American election.

It was more a reductio ad absurdum. — Hanover

I should have known.

Peter Singer is fuelling the online charity scam business model. He is just better at it than other con artists. For all I know, he might even be getting a commission for that. — Tarskian

As someone with inside knowledge, I concur. But I wouldn't accuse him of getting a commission though.

I condemn the rich who don't equalize themselves to the poor and I condemn the poor who fail to produce enough to give to others. The only ones I truly celebrate are the victims, the ones who through no fault of their own need the fruits of the wealthy.

Such is the consequence of placing virtue on failure, but it does seem to be the ethic du jour. — Hanover

Yup! More platitudes.

So my conclusion for this topic is -- we don't have an answer. Nothing. Rien.

Morality is a chore.

So in America, criminality is more acceptable than aging?

Lord have mercy!

It's a sad, sad world.

What's wrong with Biden? Why is he being criticized so much?

If you come across a child drowning and you have merely to reach out your hand and get your arm wet to save her, do you have a duty to do so? Are you acting immorally if you let her die? — RogueAI

This is an example of Ethics of Care. Similar to the OP.

Should we reject benevolence? Why or why not? Because in EoC, there really isn't a direct harm, rather, we accrue trust, respect, and kindness for the present and future activities. I can't think of a reason for why we should not care about it.

There is more to this argument because the behavior in question is something that, by itself, is not immoral. At least not what we could call the ten commandments. It is not like murder, stealing, rape, violence, or mistreatment of others -- actions that are directly done to others.

Consumerism is a societal culture. In the US and other wealthy countries, billionaires could spend 150M on a yacht without consequences. The prevailing mentality is, money is a private asset.

The notion of "appropriateness" is sometimes invited into the mix of moral arguments. JS Mill, for sure, went into the details of what's offensive when it comes to the public domain where other people exist and whose rights could be at risk of being violated. Note that he, too, implies that there is a direct recipient of one's offensive action -- there is that connection and identifiable actors.

One way to argue under this school of thought is to ask what right is being violated if I go and buy an expensive 3-piece suit or throw a $500k party for my closest friends?

(I sympathize with Singer -- we have the ethics of care, of a sense of community which doesn't seem to fit with the picture of starving people).

many farming systems are now capable of developing plant-based meat alternatives — LFranc

I'd rather not have the meat substitute. Vegetarianism is good enough.
If you are still craving meat, so you turn to fake meat, then that's not sustainable in the long run. The idea is to knowingly removing meat from your recipes.

Knowing society is fundamentally based on biology and subject to the influence of scientific phenomena observed in ecosystems and complex living systems as a whole, albeit far more convoluted and nuanced in regard to interpersonal relationships, is there grounds to justify the existence of some form of Karma? — Benj96

Maybe, maybe not. One may not need to call it Karma, but the idea is the same. We have the Confucian and Tao Te Ching teachings, for example.

Could Karma be one of those phenomena created by society itself to self-regulate? — Benj96

No. That's not Karma. Society created the "social contract" for cooperation to achieve the desired goals. As you know, there are lazy, uncooperative people who aren't given their desert.

Karma is a societal concept of innate justice or equalisation not neccessarily requiring direct and immediate counter-reaction/rebuttal in order to come about. — Benj96

Again, no. There is no "equalization". Maybe you want satisfaction? Then you are probably talking about revenge or punishment.

The best way to look at the unfairness in life, whether a bad luck or witnessing a bad person gets away with things is to detach yourself from emotional responses. Rather, adapt your habits to the new crappy situation until you find a way out. The focus is yourself -- not what's happening to others.

Do not let others see you sweat. Or perturbed. You are fighting a battle no one else sees. In the end, you create your own (good) Karma.

Easier said than done, you say? Practice.

So does the sense of injustice include, or perhaps derive from, a desire to make things better? Then it makes not difference if the source of the injustice is a human or a cancer, the response is a desire to make things fair? — Banno

I suppose. That is the title of this thread.

But yes, it doesn't matter whether it is human action or caused by the universe, we use our moral sense to judge.

Is unfairness or injustice really just the product of human action? — L'éléphant

I've been thinking along similar lines since my last reply to ↪Tom Storm

There’s also a sort of latent animism in some of our expressions in that we do attribute intent to things around us as well as to people. — Banno — Banno

Thanks for responding.

I am under the impression that we act on something -- in this case, out of our sense of justice or fairness -- because WE see the situation as unjust. So this much is clear. But as you and I know already, not only we act on unjust policies, treatment, and abuses by people in our society; we also do something about natural calamities and help those who are affected.

WE interpret the first as unjust or unfair (and we do something to remedy the situation), but what about the second scenario? Why do we save those people who are in danger by virtue of natural calamities and diseases if not out of moral judgment as well? There is no intent (nature has no evil intent) in the second, but we also do something about it. In truth, our moral sense works the same way whether the situation is caused by human action or by naturally occurring cluster fuck!

The only way in which we can "address those that are the products of the natural world" is by human action. — Banno

No objection there.

Non sequitur & category error. — 180 Proof

No. Please answer my question. What is the act of saving those people for?
I am trying to get to that sense of something that we humans use when we're making a judgment call for fairness or just.

From a human perspective, non-human nature can seem "unfair and unjust" ... to "some human populations". — 180 Proof

Please provide an example.

So, if a volcano is about to erupt -- being that a volcano eruption is totally non-human caused, and the lives of people living nearby are in danger. Would you do something about helping those people? If so, what is your reason for helping? Is it because you don't want them to die?

Is the real world fair and just? — Gnomon

Yes; however, we h. sapiens have not been "fair and just" enough – too often at all – to one another for the last several (recorded) millennia at least. — 180 Proof

The world is not fair and just because some people are unfair and unjust hence why we have a justice system for serious breaches of injustice. — kindred

Is unfairness or injustice really just the product of human action? Nature is not created equal or fair, and as a result, some human population had fared better than others.

So do we only address those unfairness caused by human actions? Or do we also address those that are the products of the natural world? Our judgment of fairness and justice clearly has a physical foundation -- whether caused by civilization or by the natural world.

Notice in the story Athena, the goddess of wisdom, might very well know the answer as she did use the two philosophers for amusement for the other gods. — ssu

:up:

Pentagon ran secret anti-vax campaign to undermine China during pandemic

And somehow it just keeps getting worse. :lol: — Tzeentch

The US was responsible for why the Covid pandemic IN THE US happened

Oh yeah, that too. :sad:

Now we come with the question what happens in countries where there are no dominant cultures and apart from abiding to state laws, no traditions and no values are taken to be the norm.
How is democracy supposed to work in such a scenario (that seems very plausible in many developed countries)? — Eros1982

There is no such country. And it doesn't sound plausible either.

Within a country, there is always a dominant language, dominant cultural sentiment, and beliefs.

I'm not familiar with Bunge's work. Say something more about his conception of "energy" that 'belongs in metaphysics" (like e.g. Schopenhauer's Will). Thanks. — 180 Proof

↪180 Proof
https://dokumen.pub/qdownload/scientific-realism-selected-essays-of-mario-bunge-9781573928922.html — Pantagruel

↪Pantagruel
Never mind. — 180 Proof

:lol: I like this!

Fourteen joys and a will to be merry.

That's all I want to say about that.

Rather, by rule #2, the one that eats "the most" and the one that eats "the least" are conceptual quantities that differ from any other quantities already given. — L'éléphant

Yes. But there is the supposition that how much they eat can change. To establish individuation, you need an additional criterion that is not empirical. — Ludwig V

But you're missing the point, I think. We don't know when they stop counting of how much each dog eats -- whether going up or downwards quantity. They could continue counting, for all I care. But the fact remains that there is the dog the eats the most and the dog that eats the least. Plato and Athena would not know this until after they stop counting (that is, if they could stop counting). But already Zeno identified two dogs that eat differently than their dogs.

I am not sure what I'm answering in the OP. But, I have comments for the following:

*2. Just World :
The just-world hypothesis refers to our belief that the world is fair, and consequently, that the moral standings of our actions will determine our outcomes. This viewpoint causes us to believe that those who do good will be rewarded, and those who exhibit negative behaviors will be punished. — Gnomon

Nothing could be further from the truth!
The world's terrain, climate, and natural resources were not created equal or fair. There is no reason, period. And yet, primates had found themselves distributed in regions where survival was close to impossible -- food is scarce, growing things would drain your blood, weather is murderous, and the climate hosts a whole bunch of deadly viruses.

The calamities and weather disasters are not created equal. The dinosaurs got wiped out unexpectedly. They themselves did not expect to be erased from the face of the earth just like that.

Oh yeah, the neanderthals -- to me it is bullshit to say that because they didn't have better social skills than homo sapiens, they perished. Perhaps, nature wasn't kind to them when it comes to developing their parietal region.

*4. LOGOS :
By using the term logos, he meant the principle of the cosmos that organizes and orders the world that had the power to regulate the birth and decay of things in the world. The cosmos was, as he saw it, constantly changing, and he conceived logos as the organizing principle of change. — Gnomon

Sometimes I don't believe this. The neanderthals could have been the modern humans of today. What is the organizing principle?

2. If there was a quantity that could be defined to be different from all other quantities, then there is a dog that would eat this quantity. There are no limitations on the quantities (physical or other), and hence on the dogs. — ssu

Zeno is right. Not by reason of counting. Rather, by rule #2, the one that eats "the most" and the one that eats "the least" are conceptual quantities that differ from any other quantities already given.

It is always valid to say "there is at least one dog that eats the most" and "there is at least one dog that eats the least".

These explanations are sufficient. To touch a branch of a tree is to touch a tree. No confusion there.

But the question abou the tree was illustrated in my Midas example when I first brough that up. Midas touches a twig. What turns to gold? The twig, branch, tree, forest? The word 'tree' was never conveyed. The intent might not even be there. The touch may have been unintended.
Answer of course is that it's fiction, so there's no requirement for there to be a correct answer. There never seems to be an answer, which seems to support my suggestion of the lack of physical basis for what constitutes all of the 'thing' indicated. — noAxioms

I am beginning to believe that you are contriving, intentionally or unintentionally, a difficulty that is not there. True, Philosophy has been criticized to be full of (1) archaic definitions (2) esoteric selectiveness (3) and even stubbornness. But it is never accused of unnecessary overthink.

In Confucianism after the Analects, I would say human nature is that first domino. For Mencius, human nature is good (Child and the Well story 2A:6), so we will seek the good, which is a proper education. Xunzi starts in the opposite direction, but ends up in the same place. Human nature is “evil” (self-interested), but some humans (The sage Kings) also had intelligence and understood we needed to work together for self-interested reasons, so they created rites/education. — Keith

I see the similarity with the Aristotelian conception of the good/essence of human being. There is the recognition or a deliberation of what good is. We don't have to start as good, but we could achieve it. The ideal is achievable.

To continue with the shift in analogy, are there a lot more good players than meets the eye? Or is it just that one happens to be a big fish in a small pond? — Mikie

If I'm not misreading you, I think you are conflating "skills" with intelligence. Historically, many intelligent people have lived an obscure existence -- not famous, not wealthy, not leaders. Could they be good leaders? Not, unless they trained for it or has a natural aptitude to be charming and persuasive.

Intelligence is measured in averages, skills in probability distribution. Which means, you could literally ask, what's the distribution of people who could be used in the manufacturing jobs? What's the distribution of people who could compete in the Olympics?

That's even worse.

An AI does not have a capacity to do deliberative thinking, but it exercises algorithm.

But it's not a physical thing. It's an idea. — Wayfarer

Something that has a shape and measurement is a physical thing.

It is finite and complete.

Education is the key to bring about this ideal state. However, this is not abstract education. It is a practice. So, one has to live the ideal, before it is real. In a phase, it is a “fake it until you make it” mentality. — Keith

Okay, so there is a system -- called education -- that could ensure the integrity of the family relationships. But this is a domino effect that we would like to happen without fail -- beginning with the parents, they must be educated enough so that the ritual is respected, but this chain could be broken and the spiraling down leads to the dysfunction.

Edit: I realize that I have been talking about the part of urban life when we could no longer aspire for the ideal.

I think we are meandering away from the question in the OP.

The question is:

Is there any physical basis for what constitutes a 'thing' or 'object'? — noAxioms

Object, of course, here, is the "thing" that philosophical theories have been trying to explain. And if the OP's definition of "object" is a philosophical one, the answer is yes.

Yes, there is a physical basis for what constitute a thing: it has to be finite, it is complete in our conception of it, and we have a coherent idea of what this thing is.
That is why we will never call the universe a thing.
We don't call consciousness or the mind a thing, but we call the brain a thing.
We call the planets, things.
We call the trees things.
We call a triangle a mathematical object.

So, in response to :

He argues that such objects, which existed long before humans and consciousness, demonstrate that the universe has a history that is not contingent on human observation. — Wayfarer

While this is tenable and I believe in this, this is not what's being asked.

Assume we die and have eternal life. Does this last for literally for *infinity*? If it does, then it never ends - *ever*. Where then will we be 1,000,000,000,000 years from now looking ahead with still an infinite amount of time ahead of us? — jasonm

If we have an eternal life, we wouldn't have a concept of time. We would not think in terms of "time". Right now, since we can't get outside of the sense of time, we are forced to hypothesize in relation to time. That's why you say it's a scary thought.

Both scenarios are like looking into an abyss that has no end. Exactly one of those possibilities must also be true. — jasonm

No. Some OPs are not coherently written. Yours is one, sorry. I'm not trying to be rude. I am trying to say to you that your proposal in the OP is misplaced because you're writing as a mortal human, with a limited amount of time.

For me, in Confusius’ philosophy, it seems to be human is to be social. — Keith

So, I take the Analects to be answering, how to be human (live meaningfully)? It is through 仁(ren) or social connection or love (in Empedocles sense). This passage says the first place we learn 仁(ren) is in the family. — Keith

Yes, that is what I take it to be. To be human is to be social -- but it starts within the family.

[1:6] The Master said: “A young man should serve his parents at home and be respectful to elders outside his home. He should be earnest and truthful, loving all, but become intimate with his innate good-heartedness. After doing this, if he has energy to spare, he can study literature and the arts.”

[Comment] In the above-mentioned essence-function view, the development of one's proper relationship with one's parents and others around her/him is fundamental in life. Only after these things are taken care of is it proper to go off and play at whatever one likes— even if this “play” involves the serious study of some art form. — A. Charles Muller, trans

It's all good.

However, the modern, or urban, sense of human interaction (our sense of interaction) is tied with psychology and its dysfunction. The sociological interpretation of human relationships must address the dysfunctional aspects of a family or whatever group one belongs to.

I have not gone through most of the analects, so I don't know the confucian suggestion on how to address the stresses within a relationship. For now, I see confusionism as the description of an ideal human being.

Remember that to be in a relationship with other people is to give up part of your individualistic tendencies. This is, I think, where the modern sense and the confucian sense have in common. But I believe most of us are not interested in the "ideal" as much as we are in how to live if we find that our situation is not the best, or worse, abusive.

Analects.

I want to start here:

[1:2] You Zi said: “There are few who have developed themselves filially and fraternally who enjoy offending their superiors. Those who do not enjoy offending superiors are never troublemakers. The noble man concerns himself with the fundamentals. Once the fundamentals are established, the proper way appears. Are not filial piety and obedience to elders fundamental to the actualization of fundamental human goodness?”

[Comment] The word ren 仁 is perhaps the most fundamental concept in Confucian thought. It has been translated into English as “benevolence,” “altruism,” “goodness”, “humaneness” etc. It is a difficult concept to translate because it doesn't really refer to any specific type of virtue or positive endowment, but refers to an inner capacity possessed by all human beings to do good, as human beings should. It is the quality that makes humans human, and not animals. In earlier iterations of this translation I have gone through various transitions: at first I attempted to use a unified English rendering throughout the text. I then pursued a strategy of leaving untranslated, as ren. Now I am presently leaning in the direction of translating the term variously, according to the context, but at present, remnants of all three strategies remain in the text. I intend to eventually sort this out.

In the Chinese “essence-function” 體用 paradigm, ren can be understood as the innate, unmanifest source of all kinds of manifestations of virtuosity: wisdom, filial piety, reverence, courtesy, love, sincerity, etc., all of which are aspects, or functions of ren. Through one's efforts at practicing at the function of ren, one may enhance and develop one's ren, until one may be called a noble man, or even better, a “humane person” 仁人. In the Analects, to be called a “humane person” by the Master is an extremely high evaluation, rarely acknowledged for anyone.

[1-3] 子曰。巧言令色、鮮矣仁。

[1:3] The Master said: “Someone who is eloquent and maintains a contrived smile is seldom considered to be a really good person. — A. Charles Muller translation

But that might mean Bob Ross would have to stop finding a suitable partner. So, the only way to meet a suitable person is to stop looking for her (him), because she (he) will show up unexpectedly.

Hmm... is this a paradox? — javi2541997

You missed the point. Obviously, he's dismayed at the artificiality of the infrastructure for finding suitable mates. And he's dismayed at the type of people that gather in such platform. Then why go there?

No -- the "suitable partner" is not going to show up unexpectedly. The connection, while he is spending time at some place, is the unexpected one.

Why would a robot sit and look at monitors when all of the information could be processed inside a small box? A robot pilot would still have the problem of time lapse because of observation/movement delay, whereas the incorporated AI would not have anywhere near as much.

Is it just because the want people to accept the fact that there might be robots around soon or is it just that they think people are stupid? — Sir2u

On point observation!

It's marketing, I guess. AI technology is very active in the stock market. The connection of representation to the humans, probably, is what made them depict AI like the picture. Driverless vehicles, press-button services, and click-buttons e-services are around already and doing well.

Who knows maybe they're to appeal to the children.