Laws can go beyond ethics and address procedural issues. Ethics are taught in family and society.

For example, an old man can't sleep with a 4 y/o. But they can with an adult. Let's use laws and ethics interchangeably. Why do you think we've all agreed to this? Let's assume the kid is his own and no community war will break out.

I think you're confusing ethics with laws. (3)

I think you're confusing ethics with laws. (2)

I think you're confusing ethics with laws.

pardon?

Why is this such a problem for you? — I like sushi

It's not the semantics but the true philosophical depth of the definition.

Not my own language, but proper understanding. Needless to say, semantics need revisiting because the language experts seemed to lack philosophical depth.

That;s what happens when you ask questions without answers. — Banno

I didn't know questions were asked after the answers were found.

That doesn't make sense.

Do you not see the problem? — Banno

I fail to see the solution even more.

It looks like all of you have failed to satisfy my question.

"Normal", as I understand it, is something that is "logical" or "true" (we'll need to now define what they are) from the lens of a completely blind observer—someone who is unaware of reality, physical laws, statistics.

That's natural (central tendency).

why not?

your definition wasn't a universal one liner.

definition means defining something. everything can be defined.

natural means stemming from nature or following nature's laws.

Normal is a philosophically paradoxical term.

still doesn't solve it.

theoretically, everything has a one liner universal definition.

how do you define it?

that's natural.

last time I put in big works I got suspended :rofl:

wouldn't have started a thread if it was a piece of cake.

what you're describing is natural.

I want a definition of normal, and a one liner universal philosophical definition.

But sure, if the OP wants to work at a research institute or a think tank, then he could be paid to "study." Presumably he wants to study whatever he wants to study, not what some institution or think tank tells him to study. — Leontiskos

No one paid Newton to discover gravity. Look where that took us.

I'm not seeing the problem. There are research jobs in industry where folks are paid (often quite well) to push back the frontiers of ignorance, ie make new discoveries. True, there aren't an abundance of them, but I'm not sure there is an abundance of folks interested in research. — LuckyR

That should be good, right? Then people won't have to worry about their taxes going to the "wrong" hands.

The problem is that the robot slave is always someone's robot slave. — Leontiskos

No. They're federal robots in a socialist type setting.

We have a word for giving people things for their own benefit, and that word is not "payment." It is "charity" or "almsgiving." — Leontiskos

Tax and government spending is charity? Well, if yes, then that's what I'm proposing. Federally funded education (government job).

Your preference is for theoretical knowledge, not practical. — Tobias

Yes. Because I believe theoretical knowledge is the purest form of knowledge.

I teach students and I am a researcher. It comes as a package deal. — Tobias

Does it pay enough to never having to get a job?

When I said paving the way, I meant pioneering. Like Newton and Mechanics.

So the same question persists: Why would anyone want to pay you to do things that do not benefit them in any way? — Leontiskos

Because in an enlightened society humans don't search for selfish material gains but the sacred things like education and knowledge.

why would I, through taxes, fund you? — Tobias

Because you're an enlightened being, not a motoric unicell organism.

I beg to differ... why would it not be? — Tobias

- What do you do for a living?
- I'm a student.

That's not a formal profession like lawyer or doctor.

And you seem not to like work. What's wrong with working? — ssu

Opportunity cost of studying/learning/researching/following hobbies or passions.

I'm doing a thesis on this right now. Thanks for initiating this thread.

socialist type — ProtagoranSocratist

I don't think it's socialistic because then taxes would also be.

study itself is work — ProtagoranSocratist

Yes. Should be regarded as more divine than government (federal) jobs.

A sane, educated, and enlightened society wouldn’t steal from the fruits of one man’s labor in order to fund the labor of another. — NOS4A2

An ideal society wouldn't require or demand humans to do labour or pay taxes. It would let the robots do those tasks while humans focus on their interests and arts.

I believe work should be done and taxes should be paid by robots while all humans live as monarchs in their bubbles.

Would you personally be willing to pay money out of your pocket for someone else to study while you work? — Philosophim

At this point, humans need to develop advanced robotics to let them do all the physical and mental labour and let humans enjoy the fruits of production in their own bubbles (libraries, vacations, drug addiction, etc). — Copernicus

Does the society have money for this? — ssu

At this point, humans need to develop advanced robotics to let them do all the physical and mental labour and let humans enjoy the fruits of production in their own bubbles (libraries, vacations, drug addiction, etc).

You're paving the way for future artists with your work and theories which would be used by academia.

Education's sole purpose should be learning, not earning. We should be able to earn as a reward of learning.