"The definition of the quality of a chair is ever changing. A "perfect" chair hundred years ago did not incorporate modern ideas of ergonomic design, so the notion of the "perfect" quality of a chair back then is today considered normal or sub quality compared to what we view quality of a chair today. So quality can only be defined by the parameters of the current time and current designs and in comparison with other objects within this timeframe."


So you are saying that the chair has not changed but the way in which it is viewed? Why is that, because people are different or because "time" or something else is different?

Does an object have these qualities inherently or subjectively?

So you are saying quality exists just in the observer?

Is it descriptive in a subjective or objective manner?

I want you to derive your own conclusions, hoping to discuss and build off one another, instead of just throwing ideas into a bucket.

You describe here what it does, not what it is.

Thanks for the input. My undergrad is in computer science and I cant imagine having to be an engineer in a cubicle for the rest of forever haha. I do like math and I think I can be good at it.

What you propose here is a "common core" for how to raise a child. Every child is different, and no one parenting style works! God forbid we have the government pushing morals and their way of education at school, but now at home too? This whole idea that anyone would not the "best" way to raise a child is laudable. Our Secretary of Education right now is a woman who has never been a teacher nor worked in a public school. It wouldn't be long before someone who has never had children or someone that was always rich, mandates how people should raise their children. Even then you could raise thousands of children and still be terrible at it.

You are jumping from different conclusions way too fast. A slippery slope fallacy it seems. To argue morals of a particular act because of hypothetical effects is not really arguable. If you look at it at its base and wonder whether having sex outside of context of religion, you would see there is no basis to call casual sex "immoral". Two people willfully coming in contact with one another is not immoral at all. That is if you believe in the right of human to his body and what he does with it.

It depends what you mean by free will. If you have read Dan Barker and Sam Harris you would get the impression that free will does not exist on the individual basis, that all of our actions are consequent of physical and psychological traits beyond our comprehension. However, Barker suggests free will in terms of a social context, that when we judge others behavior, we suppose that person had the free will to make such action. To have society without that notion would be chaos.

I think we need to clear up what kind of "ignorance" we are speaking of. Are we talking about willful ignorance? Like ignoring that which displeases you? or are we discussing ignorance that you don't know? And is this knowledge which you are ignoring easily obtainable or is it a truth that only few are privy to, like if we lived in the Matrix or something.