We try not to think about it. — Tom Storm

And yet we revel in the cultural renderings of it: expensive funerals, Hallowe'en, silly movies and tv serials about undertakers, zombies, etc; scary movies about war, serial killers and random violent events. I think we try to think about it as something historical or fictional - distant from ourselves.

What is your opinion on these things? Am I right in believing that in the contemporary world our brains are less tuned towards the fear of death? — Eros1982

Given that the majority of people still subscribe to religions with a promise of continuity - afterlife or rebirth - I can't see the brain having changed.
There is also a huge range of world-views, standards of living and imminent perils across the world; so various populations experience the prospect of death very differently.
Yes, to a large extent prosperous western populations have insulated themselves from the specter of death. They have many safeguards and remedies to prolong life, and then, when it does inevitably end, availing themselves of sanitary, impersonal methods of disposal for the remains: they can celebrate the dead grandfather with solemn rituals but without ever having to touch his cold blue limbs.
Then, too, we have some convenient escape routes, via drugs and medical intervention, so that we don't have to suffer though the final illness or injury. That helps make dying less terrifying.

However, these palliatives and protections are not available to everyone even the wealthiest countries - and certainly not to the majority of the human race, who live in poverty and under constant threat from other people, nature and time.

f it's not philosophy to you ...fine.
Maybe we are lucky or unlucky and transfers play a part. — Mark Nyquist

Uh-huh.

So perspectives will follow the group you are in.
Most of us are both Payers out and Benifitiaries. — Mark Nyquist

What is it you wanted to discuss?

You never know what you're paying for with taxes. You are told some things; you see some effects of government spending, but you can never find out how much of the money is sunk into covert operations, how much is embezzled, how much is written off on expense accounts, how much is paid out in bribes and kick-backs.

I still have not been able to discover what it is you wanted to discuss.

Arbitrary Transfers come in many forms but are identified by a transfer of funds or resource with no benefits in return. — Mark Nyquist

Such as the defence budget? And, in fact, all funding for government agencies.

Star Trek is absurd insofar as many of the scenarios seem impossible to overcome and survival appears to be a matter or pure luck. — Nils Loc

Especially given that any passing alien can just take over control of their ship. That's got to be the least secure computer system in the universe!

I wonder how it came to be that every species knows, or can figure out in two minutes, just how to operate the machines of every other species - including ones that have been dead 1000 years and all the labels are in an unknown language.

It's a big bag.
I'm not opposed to support for the arts, endowments for museums, libraries and research, scholarships, charitable donations, sponsorship of public broadcasting, trust funds for veteran rehabilitation, addiction treatments, environmental initiatives, etc.
It all depends on the why and to whom for what purpose, donnit?

What my point is, if you use Arbitrary Transfers as a tool to understand the economy you will see things you missed before. — Mark Nyquist

Oh, did you think we were all unaware of profit gouging, tax dodges and loopholes?
Even were that so, it still wouldn't be a philosophical question.

So in the US economy the organizations that can capture the most arbitrary transfer dollars will do the best. — Mark Nyquist

Do the best... what?

It might be obvious but profits tend to accumulate in certain sectors of the economy and Arbitrary Transfers can drive profitability. — Mark Nyquist

Especially as in your second example: an extra markup beyond overhead and handling.
But then, so can lots of other factors.
Still don't see the connection to productivity or philosophy.

Okay. But there is always some kind of tangible interest in an arbitrary transfer, whether it's brand recognition for sponsoring a sporting event, or a tax shelter, or the expectation - but no contractual obligation - of political favours.

That doesn't cover the other question: What does this mean:

If arbitrary transfers are used to increase production, such as in China, — Mark Nyquist

Are you talking about government subsidies to industry?

In any case, how does the spending of money relate to philosophy?

If arbitrary transfers are used to increase production, such as in China, they might have a geopolitical significance — Mark Nyquist

Presumably that's an investment in something tangible, or how could it increase production?
Investing in social programs is similarly earmarked for goods and services. Even if the program doesn't directly benefit the donor, a healthier labour pool and environment will.

I assume political donations are arbitrary transfers. That has some significance in political philosophy, as does making such transfers tax deductible. Also tax dodges in general, such as transferring assets offshore.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lessons_of_History
That's a little book, distilled from 10 previous big books, all worth reading.

This post is so riddled with political and historical ignorance that any recommendation I could give would sound patronising. — Lionino

And take too long to explain.

Maybe. I guess I would respond to this by saying that this would just be another experiment. — Igitur

Of course. But it would be your own experiment - a conversation between you and the deity or whatever - no middleman to confuse the issue. Think of it as a spirit quest, along the lines that native North American and other peoples used to do before the European priesthood took over.

Assuming you care about religious truth, values, or community, you would probably also attempt to practice religions — Igitur

I have no idea how religious truth differs from common garden variety truth or personal truth, so I can't possibly care about it. Values and community do not require religious faith or adherence. I certainly would not attempt to practice one just for appearances - unless there was a threat of persecution, which there often is, and in which case deception is perfectly acceptable.

I like your take on this!

They would not be able to fall on the people if they were in the floor, — Sir2u

They are in the floor and fall on people on the deck below. In any case, they are far too big for the span and weight requirement. And not secured properly at the one end.
I know why they're in the plot, but it's bloody annoying when attempting to suspend disbelief. A writer with some imagination could find a more realistic predicament for the setting.

The most logical path to religion, or God, or the spirits, or whatever mystical thing you're seeking, is a wide berth around churches. Those vast piles of wasted stone, timber and human effort do not contain a deity or a soul. Walk in the woods on a May morning or an orchard in September twilight or across a meadow on a hot, still July afternoon, then rest in the shade of a viburnum. If you're ever going to have a spiritual experience and find some kind of truth, that's where you'll find it.

On submarines and I would suppose star-ships the beams would be specially made in the form of the hull but they would not use curved beams for internal support. — Sir2u

No, they would use beams to support internal deck floors, which fall on people at the first volley of enemy fire. It's not the supporting walls that collapse - they're still intact. It's not the hull that caves in - there is still oxygen. The badly attached 10" I-beams are always in the ceiling.

Ho-kay. Not quite following what would bend a convex support arch, but okay.
The sparks, I get. The steam, not so much.

Another question I cannot find an answer to is why space traveling beings are depicted with claws or tentacles that can never have been used to create the spaceships they ride around in. — Sir2u

Yes! I like that question.
(In my personal galaxy, the best spaceship designs are in Babylon 5*)
except the Minbari ones - all that wasted space overhead yet impossibly small beds.

Related question: Why do curved spaceships have so many straight steel beams in the ceiling and why do the beams fall down so easily?

I suppose a related question is, "Why do we humans find a deity coming through flames apposite?" — wonderer1

You're quite right - it's the same question.
Writers project their own cultural icons onto their creations.

Wait, is it true that if we released farm animals in the wild they would ALL just die? — LFranc

They wouldn't just die. Nor would they be killed by predators, since we've already killed most of the predators. But they wouldn't find enough habitable territory or pasture for a normal herd existence. And I have no doubt the yahoos with their automatic weapons would mow them down as easy game, then let most of the carcasses rot where they drop, since they can only carry one steer in the pickup and store only half in their freezer; the rest would have to be smoked. Lots of time and work.

Divesting ourselves of meat culture wouldn't be a simple one-step procedure. It would have to be thought out, planned and implemented properly, with central co-ordination and global co-operation. Do you see humankind capable of that, for any endeavour except a war? We can't even get our act together in the last minute and a half to extinction.

How phasing out meat could work (other threats permitting) is a decline in the demand and increased demand for more sustainable protein sources. One by one, ranchers would have to sell up or change to a different method or different product. The freezer trucks would not be repaired or replaced and fall out of service. One slaughterhouse would close and then another, awaiting conversion to luxury bunkers or gymnasiums. Economies adapt to new circumstances. If there is time....

What exactly do you mean by "deities"? Could you give an example maybe? — Sir2u

Not really. They never tell you who or what the aliens are praying to or invoking or whatever they're doing when they're alone in their cabin with a burning candle, chanting or deep in some kind of trance.

The only deities that have been explicitly referred to, as far as I recall, were the Prophets of Bajor, and the ancient gods of the Klingons, whom the First Couple killed because the gods annoyed them....

... which suggests another question:
Who's minding Sto-vo-kor?

Done!

Are you an aficionada of science fiction movies and tv shows? I'm about to try starting a fun thread. (I usually fall flat, but wth?

Has anyone else here had a sense that what they were experiencing in early life wasn't truly real or that it was highly stripped down? — TiredThinker

How early? From what I recall of my first five years, reality was immense, vibrant, full of life and possibility, waiting eagerly for me to discover it.

Or is that natural when one hasn't yet accepting things as they seem to be? — TiredThinker

I don't understand this. In childhood, we begin by accepting the environment, things and people at face value; only as we gradually learn about illusion and deception, do we begin to question what things seem to be. Surely, by old age, we've figured out that nothing man-made is quite what it looks and sounds like; only nature is genuine.

I get that domesticated animals aren't exactly akin to a sickle, however they're not like a wild animal either. Their genetics were crafted by humans to fulfill a human designed function. — LuckyR

I know that. I also know that, because they are our property, made for our use, we tend to treat them like inanimate objects. And we have no real need - I mean need, as distinct from profit and desire - to have such vast numbers of captive, miserable animals. We have alternatives.
Since these strains have been adulterated to a point where most of them could not survive in the wild, the best way to let them go extinct is simply to stop artificial breeding programs. Allow the strongest and hardiest to mate at will and see if the offspring become adapted to life in the wild then release them gradually in small herds.
The rest will have to be slaughtered for the die-hard carnivores among us, as we wean ourselves off easy supermarket meat. The same people who, once the domestic livestock is no more available, will go after the surviving cattle and pigs in the wilderness and hunt them - probably with floodlights and overpowered military weapons. But the animals will at least have a chance at autonomous life.

I have no illusions about my species. Small gestures by well-meaning humans will be made - and many will succeed, but be ignored. Flocks of hens with no rooster lay eggs anyway; no reason they need to be kept in cages or have their beaks cut off. Dairy cows and goats can be induced to lactate without giving birth. Sheep don't need lambs to continue being sheared. Cheesemaking doesn't need rennet from calves. But a lot of people don't want to know, because the present system is quite lucrative, efficient and convenient.

Technology will continue to advance - while civilization lasts. We already have every possible food supplement; better vegetable-based processed food will become available - and the price would come down if the demand increased. Vat grown meat is also making progress, and will continue to be opposed by the meat lobby and rejected by hard-core carnivores. ('It's not natural!' - as if factory farming were.)

Humane eating is possible, and would become easy with humane human reproductive policies. But we're not going to have the benefit of either, because more powerful interests don't want it.

my only point is that to be fair, we should take into account the "purpose" of domesticated animals as being fundamentally different from the lives of wild animals. — LuckyR

The word 'purpose' always pulls me up short. I understand the purpose of a sickle or a canoe: something made by n intelligent being to accomplish something he wanted to do.
When we talk (all too frequently!!) about purpose in our own lives, we attribute that purpose to a deity (I am a mere sickle in the hand of Ceres) or else we must define our purpose, each for herself.
I reject the idea of gods; I don't want to be their thing. I do not wish to be a god and make other sentient creatures my things.
We could compromise and strike some kind of equitable deal with domestic animals that doesn't elevate us to godhood or reduce them to thingness, but it's not an easy one to find. I applaud the people who are trying; I try to buy my protein from such people - and try to avoid buying it off an assembly line.
The relationship will never be easy or mutually beneficial until our technology catches up with the best of our intentions. The technology is rapidly approaching; the intention need serious improvement.

What does that mean? Remember domesticated animals were invented to provide goods and services for humans. Commonly that involves their death or at minimum living in an unnatural situation — LuckyR

They were not invented - like one of our vehicles or tools. They were bred from enslaved wild cattle. How does that justify mistreating them? There is a difference between 'unnatural' in the benign sense of domesticity and the reality of feed lots on the way to a slaughterhouse, usually in their early teens. (And, of course, we must not even mention chicken factories!)

There is no heavenly edict that requires us to keep breeding cattle, pigs and lambs for eternity.
'Not existing' has already happened to all the thousands of species we wiped out to make way farming and the highways to bring food to the cities. Not existing also happens to every baby prevented by a condom. Personally, I would prefer not to be born into a short, miserable life, in which I have no choices.

I agree with you that small scale ranching leads to a better (less bad) quality of life for the animals, that's all I'm saying, take aim at the worst offenders, not the whole inductry. — LuckyR

I'm not familiar with a model of small scale ranching (what numbers? on what acreage? what procedures?) that would be beneficial to cattle.
And I already am holding up the factory farms - not just in beef production; turkey and pig farms are probably worse; industrial scale corn and wheat are not doing the ecology any favours, either - as the epitome of bad ways to feed ourselves. I've already pointed out some positive changes small farmers are making to dairy production. I'll add here: free range eggs (which is what I buy, and they're twice as good as the factory version for the same price).
And I maintain that farming shouldn't be "an industry" like making shoes or car parts.

I don't think an animal has quite the same deep societal understanding of the concepts of "mother" or "father" as a human does. — Outlander

Motherhood is not a human societal concept. It's a deeply embedded animal instinct - one for which many birds and mammals and even some fish risk their very lives. If the crying of a bereft cow doesn't convey enough pain and sorrow to a human, the deficiency is not in the cow's understanding of motherhood.

So, as intelligent beings who can prevent this process, if benefited from perhaps 1 animal while we save 1000 that would otherwise die, become extinct, or suffer, it's really self-evident. — Outlander

And what if we have the opposite effect? Suppose we benefit from 150, waste 50, extirpate 799 and save 1? (I'll do the research to support my numbers if you produce some to support yours.)

For good reason, the peasants often stole because they had no moral backbone or belief in consequence toward actions not immediately prevented. — Outlander

Or maybe because they were hungry and ground under the landowner's heel? But that's a question for another tale.

This can only be done with goats though. — LFranc

I recently saw a video about a bovine dairy where it's working very well. This is one way: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/29/mums-ask-when-cows-and-their-calves-separated-rise-ethical-milk-vegan but methods have advanced since then. The farmer I saw leaves the calves with their mothers for the morning feed, then puts them in a separate field and gives them the substitute until they can digest grass. The cows do give her less, but they're not stressed as the intervals of separation grow gradually longer. These are relatively small farms, and I wouldn't be surprised if they all specialized in cheese for the squeamish customer. Cream cheese and cottage cheese don't require rennet and older cheeses can be made with microbial rennet.

There may be more interesting developments along with cloned meat; I'm not at the cutting edge on the science.

Pretending that ranching is solely negative is a gross oversimplification. — LuckyR

I have not yet seen a model of cattle ranching that's good for the cattle, the environment and the climate. Migrating herders of ancient times probably did no great harm, but I can't think of one good thing to say for barbed wire fences.

So, you never ask another poster to justify a philosophical position? You never ask a child "What were you thinking?" or a colleague "Can you explain why this report is two days late?" or a spouse "What'd you go and say that for?"
most people do. I try not to, but it's hard to resist.

A two-step criterion: (1) performative self- consistency; if an action/policy is not, then the relevant, problematic inconsistency should be exposed and possibly reformed. (2) efficacious harm-prevention/reduction; if an action/policy is not, then It should be opposed and/or replaced with an evidently more efficacious alternative. — 180 Proof

Yess! Clear, coherent and logical.

I don't know what you mean in this context by "isolated act". — 180 Proof

I meant to distinguish the agenda of a publicly constituted entity, such as a board of education, from the idiosyncratic one-time behaviour of an individual - say, pissing in an alley.

Both of which are, of course, distinct from the most common situation in which we are challenged to justify our statements: classrooms and philosophy forums.

Simple policy, few objects needed, justification is enough objects and reasonings to show murder is bad so policy against it is good, or functional, and so justified, and we are done. — Fire Ologist

Terrific summary!

Before applying this to morality, and justifications for policies or actual individual acts, we can apply it to simply knowledge. — Fire Ologist

That was my premise: we can - and do - apply it to everything. Not just moral and legal issues, but personal hyginene, opinions, financial decisions.

We constantly ask one another to justify an opinion or statement of fact or even taste in music.
Yet we assume we all mean the same thing when we ask for, offer and accept or reject a justification.

The justification is purely one toward the individual's moral compass. — AmadeusD

In a legal situation, it is not. One of the very common situations in which we find ourselves having to offer justification for our actions is the legal arena. Dealing drugs is very clearly against the law - unless you have a pharmacist's license. A court of law is where such matters are decided by other people. The hypothetical honest criminal may justify his action in his own mind. Different criteria are applied externally and internally.
This was a single example, with which I chose to deal on its own real-world terms.

There are many other, quite different situations in which people are required to justify their opinions and/or actions: in politics, interpersonal relations, business, education, academia, science, civil compliance, religion, intellectual argument, even in writing fiction. Each situation has its own place and terms.

You think there's going to be a nuclear war? — RogueAI

I think we're heading for apocalypse. See the four big dust clouds on the horizon? One of them can be nuclear cloud.

If only we were a bit more smart! — unenlightened

Forever and ever, amen!

So the point is that justification is intrinsically social. Negotiation is to be expected as there is a balance always to be struck between the generality of social norms and the particularity of every individual's circumstances. And thus what we should expect living in a pragmatically moral social order is this balance between globalised constraints and individualised freedoms. — apokrisis

I like this explanation. Will have to reflect on it.

Ahem.

justify it to a jury — Vera Mont
This is a Neon Green goalpost, totally different to personal justification. That's my point. And it's correct. — AmadeusD

True. in the specific case, as an answer to an example. Not a goalpost; not in the OP.

When i say "lump individuals" I am talking about that individual's drug-dealing career as a 'case'. Not several individuals. Sorry if that was unclear. — AmadeusD

I didn't understand it that way, though someone else might have. Okay. How does one justify a career in drug-dealing? I assume you take into account the drug and the customer-base.

whereas a dealer who does not unscrupulously sell drugs may need a more thorough analysis — AmadeusD

Hoe do you judge a dealer's scruples in retrospect, not having witnessed his sales? It's up to him or his advocate to offer a justification, explanation, excuse or mitigating circumstance.

Very, VERY different question that shifts the entire conversation to a different goalpost (not sure you intended to do that - just being clear why its not addressed here). — AmadeusD

All kinds of different situations call for justification. It might be defense of a philosophical argument in an academic setting; it might be a confrontation with a spouse or employer who questions a decision; it might be advocacy for an allocation of funds in a city council; it might be criminal trial.
I set no 'goalposts' - I asked a question about the definition and usage of a word we encounter every day and rarely examine.

But, you can lump individuals as 'a case'. — AmadeusD

No, you can't 'lump' individuals - they're all separate - and the plural of anything does not make 'a case'. You might be able to make a single case for a particular kind of situation, but you would first have to show how all the specific instances have enough commonalities to justify their being considered as a single case.

It would be arguments that the individual/s that done the wrong were not fully to blame, or that we should be more lenient on them. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Yes.

n consequentialism the goodness or badness or an action is judged wholly by its consequences. — Down The Rabbit Hole

In which case, selling drugs would have to be judged on a case-by-case basis: which drug, to whom, under what circumstances; how did they use it, what affect it had. Doesn't that require a lot of usually unavailable information? How does the dealer justify it to a jury?