↪Artemis I don’t see why — Banno

Because it only involves recognizing the human rights of human beings who have settled an area before others.

What's race got to do with that?

Hence, there is a strong emphasis on recognising their very existence. — Banno

Which is a far cry from recognizing or emphasizing difference, no?

I was going to respond to you, but that last paragraph disparaging trans persons made me lose my interest in anything you have to say.

ask for second opinions — alcontali

Ah, but from whom?

Right, capitalism has made education and medical care expensive in America compared to other countries.

It still does not follow that there's nothing to be gained from either.

All that follows is that these goods should be made accessible and affordable for all people who want it.

Education hasn't changed for 150 years. It is still the same schools and largely the same curriculum. Every other industry has changed drastically. How comes? — alcontali

It really depends on what you mean by "changed"? As far as curriculum goes, that only holds true in part. Plato and Aristotle and Kant are still being taught because they are still important foundations. Nussbaum and Singer and Wolff couldn't have been taught 150 years ago, because they weren't alive then, but they are being taught now. So the curriculum, in my experience, carries a healthy load of traditional as well as new content.

As for methodology, most humanities classes depend on a textbook, discussion, a knowledgeable instructor, willing students, and some writing exercises. That hasn't changed for more than 150 years. It hasn't really changed since the Ancients. It's just not a wheel that needs reinventing.

I agree that schools in America are outrageously expensive. And I agree that capitalism has pushed especially for-profit schools to accept more and more students who are ill-prepared for college and push them through despite lacking performances. And it's certainly not the only way to educate yourself provided you have the right attitude.

But all that doesn't really lead to the logical conclusion that nobody stands anything to gain from studying and researching a subject intensely under the tutelage of people who've also studied and researched these fields intensely.

Or perhaps, when you have brain cancer someday, you'll prefer some random guy off the street to do your surgery over the doctor who went to medical school and was taught how to do it right?

I said bachelor's degree. And I don't mind being more specific: I hold a dual degree in Philosophy and in another field and my senior thesis was on the intersection of the two. I have a master's in the other field and I am working on a PhD therein. Hence my knowledge of how academia works.

I would have pursued a career in philosophy, but it's a tough job market for which you have to be willing to move and I really like where I'm living and I like my chosen field just as much as philosophy. But sometimes the bug strikes me and I wind up here talkin to y'all.

:nerd:

↪Artemis “Also it isn’t wrong to say that not all business ethics is applied ethics because first you have to agree that all of our business ethics is actually ethical in the first place.” Okay, so are you saying that trickledown, middleground and trickleup economics are all ethically valid just because they are all attempts at applied business ethics? Or can we debate which of the three options is more ethical? If we can debate them, then how is it wrong for me to suggest that I don’t believe they are all ethical? There is a distinct difference between saying something is an attempt at an ethical business model and saying it actually is ethical.

If you’re not inferring I’m lying then why the interrogation and why aren’t you putting anyone else here under scrutiny? We both know full well you’re entire argument is a veiled ad hom attack for no other reason than to troll someone whom you 1, know nothing about, 2, can verify absolutely nothing about. If you weren’t inferring this then why the 3rd degree and the unfounded skepticism? — Mark Dennis

I'll answer this here so as not to further hijack the education discussion.

Your first paragraph tells me that you still don't really get it. The study of ethics does not only discuss things that are known to be (or presumed to be) ethical. It much more importantly addresses the very types of concerns you raise. When is something ethical? Is X unethical? What does it mean for X to be ethical or not. I'm really quite surprised that you seem to think Ethics, applied and otherwise, would only tackle issues that have already been solved.

As to your 2nd paragraph, I've repeatedly told you that I'm not out to do anything to you. I was/am in theoretical disagreement with you about what constitutes applied ethics.

From my vantage point, I started off being interested in what your area of expertise might be, just as a general friendly inquiry. Then I tried goodheartedly to tease you about your vague answer. Then I was just amused and bemused at your increasing hostility toward my rather benign questions/theoretical disagreement.

But I'm sure now you'll tell me yet again what nefarious intents I actually have, because you seem to think you know my own mind so much better than I do. :brow:

But you do not get to lie — Mark Dennis

And not to split hairs, but an accusation of lying again implies you know intent. You don't know my intent and have been baselessly accusing me of all sorts of ill-will from the get-go here.

The irony is that you're telling me I'm putting things in your mouth when you've done almost nothing but ascribe to me thoughts and goals and predispositions that you could really not logically infer from my posts.

However I never once made the claim that they don’t relate to each other. Not once. — Mark Dennis

Except here:

Also it isn’t wrong to say that not all business ethics is applied ethics because first you have to agree that all of our business ethics is actually ethical in the first place. — Mark Dennis

you bait me into showing you my certifications — Mark Dennis

I never asked for them. But you're still wrong about business ethics.

For the love... I'm not interrogating anyone. I asked a simple question and then pointed out that he's wrong about business ethics, and continues to say incorrect things about it. What constitutes business ethics might belong in another thread, but it hardly is an interrogation to disagree with someone about that.

Everything else implied by persons other than myself in this thread about my intentions is just projection.

You’re using false equivalences — Mark Dennis

Like what?

Does a masters in applied ethics include classes on business ethics? Yes. — Mark Dennis

Qed.

Do I have to agree with everything said in that class? No. — Mark Dennis

As is your prerogative. Does your agreement with the class determine whether it is a branch of applied ethics? Nopity nope nope.

you’re suspiciously trying to dig up identifying details on me — Mark Dennis

That's all projection on your part.

I've been asking him what he specialized in. Same dif.

Methinks the Mark doth protest too much.

Far from being annoyed, I'm rather amused. What does this have to do with trust? I never invoked trust. I was just curious what your specialization was, and then I pointed out an error in your post.

But the case does get curiouser and curiouser. Now you're claiming studies in business ethics are not a branch of philosophy because not all people agree that all business practices are ethical? Huh?

That's like saying studying socialism is not part of political theory because not all people agree that it's a viable system. Or like saying pro-life positions are not part of the study of ethics because not everyone agrees with them.

I realize that. But in the course of a master's degree in any field you'll narrow your research down to a specfic project by the end, even if you did start out with a broad education.

Notice there are no master's theses titled "applied ethics: a broad and general analysis of all that might apply."

And he was definitely wrong suggesting business ethics is not always a branch of applied ethics.

it isn’t the same as a masters in business ethics. It could be, — Mark Dennis

It's funny because, actually, business ethics is a kind of applied ethics, as you should know (?).

And as broad as applied ethics can be, presumably you would have had to narrow it down in some fashion or another by the end of your studies.

That could still be law or business ethics :lol:

You mean like law or business ethics?

FWIW, I think it's interesting to see the percentage of people here with formal training versus self-taught.

I mean, I always had my suspicions, but it's still interesting.

I wanna know who here claims to have a PhD in philosophy. :brow:

That was your teachers' goal! :wink:

No I don't . — 3017amen

If you don't understand how an ad hominem works, I suppose that explains a lot for your lack of understanding of the rest of this entire discussion.

Perhaps @DingoJones is right and you're just not aware of how out of touch you are in this conversation.

In that case I commend you for trying to participate in something that is obviously not your forte, but I do recommend some humility and some willingness to learn rather than grandstand on the idea that you've somehow gained insight that has mysteriously eluded people with more education and experience than yourself.

Also, quit it with the lols. It makes you sound like you're in middle school.

Many of you just use ad hominem arguments when you find yourselves in a position of defending nothingness. — 3017amen

I don't think you understand what an ad hominem is.

If I were to say, "amen is a stupid screenname, therefore you're wrong," that would be an ad hominem.

I'm saying that your entire method of interacting with people on this thread is wrongheaded. That's not an ad hominem.

I'm not criticizing an arbitrary aspect about you to refute your argument. I'm saying your process of argumenation is deeply flawed.

Do you understand the difference?

So why do you do this? Why do you string people along endlessly and without any intention of learning or taking them seriously? What's the point of you being here on this forum if you don't care about the conversation?

And, back on topic, since it's been the atheists here arguing in good faith with you, and you as the "believer" (of whatever ineffable thing it is) have been arguing in bad faith, that really just proves you wrong and solidifies the legitimacy of atheism.

Cute. But you know Einstein never laughed at people when he was arguing with them in good faith.

LOL — 3017amen

Does loling at people make you feel better?

I guess you've chosen willful ignorance then.

You're a politician? Who knew.

We're not the only ones to point out to you in this thread that you're not engaging people well. You can be stubborn about that or try to figure out what you're doing wrong and improve yourself. Your choice.

Then learn something about philosophy instead of trolling and using words you don't understand.

I'll take that to mean you're not interested in actually learning anything here and your questions are therefore disingenuous to begin with.

Same thing with music, as you said. You weren't interested in learning anything about that either.

Willful ignorance has no place in philosophy.

And from the OP, what is this feeling known as Love, is that metaphysical you think? — 3017amen

This very question shows you don't understand what metaphysics is. Go educate yourself and only then is a conversation possible.

metaphysical language.
2. I think consciousness is a metaphysical thing.
3. I think language itself is a metaphysical thing. — 3017amen

It would be helpful if you understood what "metaphysics" even is.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/

Completely wrong. It predicts lifespan, lifetime earnings, hesd circumference, success in many school subjects, the sizes of numerous brain gyri and the size and speed of your brain cells. — Hallucinogen

Are you branching out into phrenology now?

Smart people tend to have certain life outcomes (maybe), smart people tend to do well in school (or not, because smarter people can also tend to slack off), and your points about brain speed are almost tautological. Like saying faster people's legs move faster and more efficiently.

By huge, do you mean 20%? — Hallucinogen

Are you trying to say if it were 20% that would be negligible? By your own theory, that would correlate to a twenty percent better life. I think most people would say 20% is a big improvement on life.

did you have to disregard before cherrypicking this one? — Hallucinogen

This is such a ridiculous statement, especially coming from the dude who previously presented his own, singular, piece of evidence that wasn't even directly related to the issue of race and IQ.

IQ, like most things, is not a simple thing to assess. Studies have shown that it's culturally influenced and tests a pretty narrow range of abilities.

But let's assume for a moment that it could accurately measure important skills. Adoption studies have shown over and over again that environment plays a huge role in determining IQ. It's a mixture of nature and nurture. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4403216/

Just like height. We're born with a predisposition to be a certain height range, but nutrition and exercise and emotionally stable environments determine where exactly we wind up.

I think we should stick to ye olde PM method for alerting mods to troublemakers.

Otherwise you might as well call it the witchhunt thread and we have enough heated tempers here without a dedicated thread for flaming those we dislike.

Because if those others start treating you just like any other nigga, you gonna freak out big time. — unenlightened

Are you stereotyping all black people as ghetto gang-bangers now? Ha! I know a few Nigerians who will get a kick out of that. Excuse me while I take a screen shot of this. :lol:

Just as Germans tend to speak German despite there being no gene for speaking German and no distinct race of Germans. It is a wonder to me that seemingly educated folks hereabouts cannot get their heads around this. — unenlightened

Well, but that mostly holds true not for "Germans" but "people living in Germany."

There are plenty of Germans (i.e., people of German descent) living in America who couldn't tell Spätzle from Knödel if their life depended on it.

I was an ear trained musician. — 3017amen

I sincerely hope you do mean that in the past tense.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/q-and-a/the-true-and-false-virtues-of-the-left-robert-boyers?source=EDT_NYR_EDIT_NEWSLETTER_0_imagenewsletter_Daily_ZZ&utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_source=nl&utm_brand=tny&utm_mailing=TNY_Daily_101319&utm_medium=email&bxid=5bd670e52ddf9c619438e798&cndid=23178531&esrc=&mbid=CRMNYR062419&utm_term=TNY_Daily

I think this article touches on a lot of the issues both of you are worried about.