Do you choose to enjoy a naked flame scorching your skin? Do you value the state you are after being burned? — Nickolasgaspar

I don't. Some people do.

Do you enjoy the emotions produced by an open wound, being starved, being humiliated etc etc etc etc etc etc. — Nickolasgaspar

Again, some do.

all those emotions help you avoid states that do not contribute to your well being (feeling comfortable, happy, free of pain, being valued by your peers, physically healthy etc). — Nickolasgaspar

You've yet to demonstrate that. Comfortable and free of pain I'll grant as being self-evident since such emotions are directly about comfort or pain, but where's your evidence that following such emotions leads to happiness, physical health and being valued by ones peers?

I have evidence of my consciousness that no one else can have, because no one else is me. — bert1

To be clear, you have evidence of something. You can't possibly have private evidence of consciousness, how would you know what the word meant if your only evidence of it was private? How would your language community have taught you how to use the word, what it referred to?

Yes, so one makes an assessment. — Punshhh

...and back to my original question. Whose story do you trust and why?

It’s unlikely to be false if it’s also being reported on multiple global news outlets, for example. — Punshhh

If global news outlets report two different things then one of them is (all other things being equal) exactly 50% likely to be false. Not 'unlikely' at all. You do know the 'multiple global news outlets' don't all get their data from different sources don't you? If you've got six newspapers reporting the Pentagon's release of some intelligence data that's not six confirmatory sources, that's one source with six outlets.

Besides, there's almost universal agreement as to the basic facts, it's the analysis which differs. So how does having six people repeat the same analysis corroborate it, talk me through the mechanism by which greater agreement there affects reality.

So your description of a settlement absent an iron curtain, is one indistinguishable from one including an iron curtain? — Punshhh

What? I thought you said an iron curtain would restrict migration. My description is of a border which doesn't restrict migration. They don't sound indistinguishable to me. Perhaps you could clarify how they're the same.

You keep repeating that journalists are suspect, while treating as gospel — Olivier5

Where have I treated it as gospel?

a bulletin who pretends to be of scientists — Olivier5

They're not 'pretending' anything. They gather together the opinion of scientists. It says so in the fucking quote.

The Bulletin began as an emergency action, created by scientists who saw an immediate need for a public reckoning in the aftermath of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. One mission was to urge fellow scientists to help shape national and international policy. A second mission was to help the public understand what the bombings meant for humanity.

Members of the Board of Sponsors are recruited by their peers from the world’s most accomplished science and security leaders to reinforce the importance of the Bulletin’s activities and publications. The Board grew out of the Emergency Committee of Atomic Scientists, which Einstein wrote, “was organized in August 1946 to support the educational activities undertaken by the various groups of atomic scientists.”

Members of the Board of Sponsors are consulted on key issues, including the setting of the Bulletin’s Doomsday Clock. Members, which have counted 40 Nobel laureates over the years, are welcome to attend all meetings.

Atomic scientists are not scientists? — Olivier5

No. The 'Bulletin of Atomic Scientists'

the Bulletin is a media organization, posting free articles on its website and publishing a premium digital magazine. But we are much more. The Bulletin’s website, iconic Doomsday Clock, and regular events help advance actionable ideas at a time when technology is outpacing our ability to control it. The Bulletin focuses on three main areas: nuclear risk, climate change, and disruptive technologies. What connects these topics is a driving belief that because humans created them, we can control them.

The Bulletin is an independent, nonprofit 501 (c) (3) organization. We gather a diverse array of the most informed and influential voices tracking man-made threats and bring their innovative thinking to a global audience. We apply intellectual rigor to the conversation and do not shrink from alarming truths. — https://thebulletin.org/about-us/

I'm sure they know a lot about atoms. — Olivier5

They're journalists, not scientists.

If the referral is that "to assist a third country with weapons" didn't mean that the Cold War would escalate to WW3, I think history pretty well shows that. — ssu

What. The fact that we haven't yet had World War Three shows that we couldn't initiate World War Three? That's something of an heterodox argument to say the least.

This in not rocket science. It' basic historical knowledge. — ssu

So the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists are what? Too stupid?

That’s a simplification, there is real information in such a bulletin. Even the biased narrative is in itself and contains information. — Punshhh

But also dis-information. Or are you saying that all bulletins are factually accurate? The task is to determine which of two opposing (or non-overlapping) narratives you're going to support. Simply saying there's 'information' in them all is insufficient for you to choose between them.

The very fact that this subject is being discussed here in an intelligent way is proof of people deriving knowledge of what’s happening on the ground. — Punshhh

How? Everything said in this entire thread could be false. The fact that you find it to be intelligent doesn't have any bearing on whether it's actually the case.

when there is only one person left in Russia, we’ll apart from those who are paid by Putin to stay there? Will things just carry on as normal? — Punshhh

I doubt it, not with only one person.

Do you understand why this isn't a tautology but it describes what our biology "values" (drives serving our well being) and how that informs what we value.(moral judgements). — Nickolasgaspar

"Our biology values that which our biology values" is a tautology. To avoid the tautology you'd have to define well-being in terms other than 'that which our biology values'. Something you've yet to do.

Why can't there be different reasons for different invasions? — Christoffer

There can be. You are arguing that there actually are, not merely that there could be. That's what we professors call a 'difference'.

That's why I didn't say Russia would invade Sweden entirely, but just invade Gotland, since that enables a larger presence in the Baltic sea. — Christoffer

I see, so Russia invading Crimea or Donbas would be something NATO expansion might reasonably be expected to have provoked?

Russia is just too stupid to understand that its aggression is what drives Nato, both Sweden and Finland wouldn't have thought to join Nato if it weren't for bloathead Putin. — Christoffer

Yeah, and he smells too, and apparently, he rides a girl's bike, what a wally!

Sweden and Finland may join Nato because WE want to be secure against Russia, but I guess you would point out that we are slaves to the US for doing so. — Christoffer

Well yeah.

Dr Professor — Christoffer

Just 'Professor' will do, thank you.

It’s not necessary to trust a media resource in order to derive information from it. — Punshhh

Of course it is, otherwise you're deriving misinformation from it.

Better to take a broad take of many sources to arrive at a sense of what is happening on the ground. — Punshhh

How exactly? How does your 'broad take' give you a sense of what's happening on the ground - give me an example of a state of affairs on the ground you've gained a sense of by this 'broad take' of many sources?

when growing numbers of people emigrate due to the dire standard of living in Russia due to sanctions etc. Presumably Putin will seek to restrict the numbers leaving. — Punshhh

Well no, because that would be the 'iron curtain' you were referring to and you asked me what a situation without it would look like. Such a situation would be one in which he didn't do that.

Well being is a state which encompasses many different elements like positive emotions, good physical health and social connections. We can list all the emotions and characteristics that promote such a state — Nickolasgaspar

Go on then...

we are biologically preconditioned to seek a state of well being. — Nickolasgaspar

Tautologous. If our well-being is constituted of those aspects which we are driven to maintain then it says nothing that we a biologically preconditions to seek them. You just defined them as those things we're biologically preconditioned to seek.

none of you have admitted yet that you value well being as the main reason why we are positive towards moral acts and negative towards immoral acts. — Nickolasgaspar

Because you've not defined 'well-being' yet, so we can hardly be expected to admit that we value it.

Unfortunately in that list you are repeating things that I have pointed out as unnecessary. — Nickolasgaspar

That would be because I disagree with your assessment that they're unnecessary.

we need those metrics to establish biological predisposition towards a state of well being. From the moment we do that we can accept well being as an objective criterion for moral judgments. — Nickolasgaspar

Doesn't follow at all. We establish that we are predisposed to a state of well-being. We can accept well-being as a criterion for moral judgements (though we need not - we could just as well accept hair colour as the criterion - nothing about being biologically predisposed toward a thing compels us to accept it as the goal of morality).

IF we agree with that last thing, then we can proceed on the temporal framework of our judgments since every act can affect differently our wellbeing as individuals and as a society. — Nickolasgaspar

Indeed. If we can accept 'air pressure', or 'tidal range', or 'fringe length' as an objective criterion for moral judgments then we can then go on judge the effect of acts on these criteria. The trouble is, we don't.

Again Banno's question (is/ought) is irrelevant since we have already pointed out that biological predisposition to a specific state is not a matter of choice. We are the descendants of individuals with a genetic predisposition to seek happiness, physical health and avoid suffering. — Nickolasgaspar

And @Banno has pointed out that it simply being one of our predispositions doesn't progress in any way toward the decision to choose it from others.

It's really simple. You have two scenarios

1. We will always choose the course of which maximises everyone's well-being

or

2. We will sometimes not choose the course of action which maximises everyone's well-being

In the case of (1) you have no moral dilemmas, no-one will ever act in any other way than the most moral anyway. In the case of (2) you have a choice and so you need to give reasons for choosing the course of action which maximises everyone's well-being over the alternative.

A resolution of this conflict might look like the death of Putin — Olivier5

Yes. And then it turns out that Putin was Zelensky's father all along but turned evil by Biden back when he was training to be a dictator... Brilliant. Just don't encourage anyone to make the sequel, they're shit.

We’re in the 21st century. There are multiple media resources. — Punshhh

Uh huh. And you can't believe them all. Hence the question - whose story do you trust and why?

So, without that iron curtain. After the conflict has been resolved. Will every Russian citizen be free to emigrate? — Punshhh

Yes. Since you stipulated that an iron curtain was a barrier to migration, then it stands to reason that without it emigration would be relatively free.

I don’t trust anyone’s story, I don’t need to, I make my own assessment. — Punshhh

Really. You physically go out and gather your own evidence and then learn all the historical, military, political and economic processes acting on that evidence all by yourself. That's really impressive. You must have to get up very early in the morning.

Now what does a resolution to this conflict look like, without an iron curtain between Europe and Russia? — Punshhh

Well... Imagine what an Iron Curtain between Europe and Russia would consist of. Now imagine it not there. Voilà. That's what it would look like.

What's scary right now is that Sweden still hasn't 100% decided and it would be a clusterfuck if we didn't join while Finland did. Russia would probably invade Gotland to keep a buffer zone in the Baltic sea if that happens. — Christoffer

Ha! Why on earth would they do that? Russia don't invade countries to keep a buffer between them and NATO, that would be ridiculous (apparently) they only invade former USSR territory to satisfy Putin's personal fantasy of a Russian empire.

So tell me again, how is it that NATO advancement into the Eastern bloc didn't provoke Putin, but advancement into Finland definitely would?

Tightlipped? If I remember correctly (I may remember incorrectly), you are the one making accusations of me keeping here a blog and putting links and that I should go and see a therapist. — ssu

Sources, not opinions. I have the latter in spades already. You said...

wouldn't likely launch WW3 now. — ssu

I asked for a source. It's not rocket science. You find the article from which you got that assessment and you paste the web address (or paste the quote).

I'm not being right lipped about assessments. Here is one for the current conflict — Count Timothy von Icarus

That talks about Russia's military success in Ukraine. We we're talking about the risk posed by escalating NATO's involvement. Where is the source you're using for your assessment that escalating NATO involvement presents little risk of retaliation from Russia?

It doesn’t look likely to me. — Punshhh

Your assessment of the likelihood is irrelevant. I just can't get my head round the enthusiasm with which a load of armchair laymen want to speculate about the likelihoods, it's like we're betting on a boxing match. I find it more than a little disturbing.

What I'm talking about are the factors that we, as laymen, get to deal with - whose story do you trust and why?

So I’m explicitly asking you - now for the fifth time - to provide evidences of such claim “the rich oppress the poor far more consistently than one nation oppresses another”. — neomac

Don't be ridiculous. If this is going to be your approach we can forget it, I've not the time to play these daft games. My point requires only that the policies of the ruling classes cause some deaths among the working classes, there's nothing to discuss on that front because it's either obvious that this is the case and needs no evidence or you really haven't a clue about economics of politics in which case I'm not going to spend my time teaching you.

I don’t see the point of your claim “defending one's nation' alone is insufficient as a moral reason” since the “insufficiency” qualification by comparison to other alleged more relevant moral reasons (e.g. fighting against the ruling class, which you admit can be unacknowledged by the oppressed) doesn’t question the fact that Ukrainians actually have an acknowledged moral reason to fight for defending their nation and therefore feel compelled to act upon it as they do. — neomac

Of course it questions that fact. If there's no moral case for defending one's nation then those merely 'defending their nation' have no moral case. It could not be more simple.

OK then what is the relation between Russian and Ukrainian rich people being in a luxury yachts, while Russian and Ukrainian children starve do death in their rubbish, with the fact that Russian soldiers are exterminating Ukrainian families and children? — neomac

Nor did I restrict my analysis to Russia and Ukraine. Are you going to go around the world adding one country at a time or are you going to have an honest conversation including the fact that America and Europe are deeply involved in this conflict?

So you are not claiming that the war in Ukraine is a war between American and Russian expansionism as great power politics in Mearsheimer-lingo, now?! — neomac

Nope. What the situation is and what our choices are, are two different things.

if your moral position and choices should not be constrained within a de facto clash of dominance between American and Russian powers, then also Zelensky moral position and choices should not be constrained within what a de facto war situation is, especially as framed by the enemy. — neomac

Who said Zelensky was 'constrained' by the de facto circumstances?

You should tell me! You talked about multi-causal analysis, I didn’t! — neomac

You introduced maths. Why does a multi-causal analysis entail that I should be able to carry out some mathematical calculation assigning degrees of blame? I can say party X is somewhat to blame and party Y somewhat to blame. That's multi-causal and involves no maths whatsoever.

I made my moral assessment based on a posteriori comparative evaluation concerning how much Zelensky’s choices reflect what Ukrainians actually value (defending Ukraine from Russian aggression), how much Ukrainian values are closer to Westerners wrt Russians (Ukrainains are more open to westernization), how much proportionate Russian response to the claimed threat from Ukrainians was, how much Russian aggressive expansionism is an actual existential threat to the West (given the actual Russian cyberwar against the West, the actual nuclear threat against the West, the actual Russian aggressive expansion in Ukraine, the Middle East and Africa, and Putin’s actual aspirations to a new world order), and so on, and my conclusion is that I have moral reasons to side with Zelensky’s resistance against Russia. — neomac

So a list of arbitrary preferences then...

if you contrast a Russian puppet government wrt Zelensky’s, praise the first and blame the second — neomac

Where have I done anything of the sort? It's simple

Option 1 - Long drawn out war, thousands dead, crippled by debt, economy run by the IMF, regime run by corrupt politicians in the pocket of lobbyists benefiting the corporations and immiserating the poor. Blue and yellow flag over the parliament.

Option 2 - Less long war, fewer dead, less crippled by debt, less in thrall to the IMF, regime run by corrupt politicians in the pocket of oligarchs benefiting the corporations and immiserating the poor. Blue, red and white flag over the parliament.

Option 2 has fewer dead.

Sure, but that’s also why you would consider the poor/Palestinian parents immoral because they are knowingly exposing their children to death/sickness/starvation/misery. — neomac

Why? People are not normally required to avoid all risk to others in order to avoid being labelled immoral?

What are the other solutions you are talking about? — neomac

I'm not answering these stupid questions. Either have a serious conversation or don't bother replying.

What is the point of such claims, in particular the part I put in bold? I see none. — neomac

Seriously. You don't see the point in ascertaining who I'm talking to? What garbage.

I have no idea what “the outcome continued war is compared to matters.” is supposed to mean. — neomac

Option 1 - Long drawn out war, thousands dead, crippled by debt, economy run by the IMF, regime run by corrupt politicians in the pocket of lobbyists benefiting the corporations and immiserating the poor. Blue and yellow flag over the parliament.

Option 2 - Less long war, fewer dead, less crippled by debt, less in thrall to the IMF, regime run by corrupt politicians in the pocket of oligarchs benefiting the corporations and immiserating the poor. Blue, red and white flag over the parliament.

Option 2 has fewer dead.

P1. If, in the Ukrainian-Russian negotiation, demands are unacceptable [p] or the assurances aren’t enough [q], then the negotiation fail [r]
P2. In the Ukrainian-Russian negotiation, negotiation demands were unacceptable [p] and assurances weren’t enough [q]
C. The negotiation fail [r] — neomac

Well then C doesn't follow because you've not demonstrated P2.

Yes I’m claiming there are moral reasons to back a particular strategy, and the particular strategy is supporting Zelensky’s resistance against Russian aggression. Does that sound new to you after all I already, repeatedly and extensively said? — neomac

No, but you've yet to adequately support any such reasons other than state some entirely arbitrary preferences and then declare alternative 'preposterous'. If you find the views of anyone who doesn't share your entirely arbitrary preferences 'preposterous' I suggest a debate forum isn't the best place for you.

> Fine. Replace all my uses of US, NATO and Europe with the names of their current leaders and influences and then answer the questions.

That’s your job. When you do your job, I’ll do mine. — neomac

Seriously? You want me to re-post all of my comments with the names edited. Are you retarded? Can you seriously not handle the task of simply reading one for the other?

you are just saying that one party has to converge to the requests of the other party as they are formulated. — neomac

Option 1 - Long drawn out war, thousands dead, crippled by debt, economy run by the IMF, regime run by corrupt politicians in the pocket of lobbyists benefiting the corporations and immiserating the poor. Blue and yellow flag over the parliament.

Option 2 - Less long war, fewer dead, less crippled by debt, less in thrall to the IMF, regime run by corrupt politicians in the pocket of oligarchs benefiting the corporations and immiserating the poor. Blue, red and white flag over the parliament.

Option 2 has fewer dead.

I'm not saying anyone has to do anything. I'm pointing out that the terms offered by Russia are in this specific case, not applying to every single case in the world (which you bizarrely assumed), are such that it's not worth thousands of lives and huge indebtedness just to avoid them.

I would understand better if you could show me how you would answer to your own question: “If the outcomes of strategic decisions are beyond your expertise, then why do you choose to trust the experts and leaders supporting your current position and not those supporting the alternatives?” — neomac

I choose the experts whose opinions align with the narratives I prefer. I have world views I find satisfying and if an expert opinion aligns with those I'll choose to believe that expert rather than one whose opinion opposes them. All this assuming the expert in question has sufficient qualification and no obvious conflict of interest. Seeing this crisis as a random outburst from an unprovoked madman (who the US can stamp on with it's shiny military) is useless. It achieves nothing. Seeing this crisis as an inevitable result of capitalist imperialism lends support to the fight against capitalist imperialism, which is a good thing.

I was contrasting their opinion with yours and I explained why.
If you can suggest military and foreign policy experts or political commentators that disagree with my views or support your views, I’m open to have a look at them, of course. — neomac

I already have.

Again as I told you many times,those biological metrics only verify to us that well being is an important principle for morality — Nickolasgaspar

How do they do that? If those metrics are not themselves 'well-being', then you've got to somehow relate them to the concept of well-being you're using. You've still not actually defined well-being.

We don't need to scan people in order to do a moral evaluation...lol
The only thing we need to do is study those metrics, understand why well being is linked to those metrics(why i.e. forcing the productions of glucocorticoids by putting people under stressful situations(immoral acts) is linked to documented pathodology) and use well being as principle for our moral judgments. — Nickolasgaspar

Here's a quick stripped down version of how one would design an experiment in any field of human sciences. I want to find out, for example, if being in the dark raises stress levels. I have to decide

1. How am I going to measure stress levels and what time period after the exposure to dark am I going to count as a response?
2. How am I going to control for other factors which might raise stress whilst the subject is in the dark, to be sure it wasn't those factors causing my results?
3. How am I going to ensure that any results I get aren't an artefact of my statistical analysis, rather than an effect of the exposure?
4. How do I avoid expectation bias - in this case stress levels being raised simply because the subjects expect to be exposed to something that raises stress.
5. How am I going to show that the factor I measured and the response I measured (both quantifiable terms) actually relate to the qualitative experiences I'm claiming to investigate?
6. How is anyone going to practically make use of what I've found out - how does it translate to the field of practice I'm aiming it at?

You want to claim we can do this with morality. That we can show immoral acts (the dark in my example) cause a drop in well-being (rise in stress in my example).

Yet you've missed virtually every step.

1. You've not said how well-being will be measured, nor at what timescale after the putative immoral act.
2. You've not said how you would work out that the act being tested would be isolated from all the other possible causes of a drop in well-being so as to show that this act (and not just a coincidence of confounding factors) caused the observed drop in well-being.
3. You've not provided any information at all on the statistical methods.
4. You've not said how to avoid the expectation bias in cultural ascriptions of acts as immoral and the accompanying expectation that they would affect well-being somehow
5. You've not related your measures to what we call 'well-being', nor what we call an 'act'. Nor have you taken into account any reinforcement feedback that might arise from those definitions
6. You've not answered@Banno's question about how you go from your results to any compulsion to act in the target audience (presumably those on the horns of a moral dilemma).

Answer issues 1-6 (although you can do as I do and just get a friendly statistician to do 3 for you!). Then we can see how your theory holds up.

Russia is not an economic superpower. — Punshhh

No indeed, but irrelevant to the topic of whether we need be wary of provoking a military response.

it seems their so-called superpower army is a shambles. — Punshhh

'Seems' to whom? I've pressed @frank, @ssu and @Count Timothy von Icarus for some expert opinion on which they're basing their assessment, but all are being suspiciously tight-lipped. I suspect they're afraid of compromising their sources, deep cover assets in Russian intelligence no doubt...

And your opinion as to the most likely outcome? — Punshhh

I don't really have one. At a guess I'd say that there'll either be a deal which gives independence to Dombas and Crimea and an assurance of non-NATO membership for all, or America will succeed at drawing Russia into it's proxy war and we'll see (after a long drawn-out conflict) a full downfall and replacement of Putin with some new Western-friendly puppet who'll do what all western-friendly puppets have done in history - hand over massive contracts to US firms, build up huge debts, and slash welfare then get mired in conflict with resentful separatists. Meanwhile a few thousand more Ukrainians will be killed for the prize of having their own coloured flag hang over their debt-ridden, corrupt parliament whilst they slowly freeze because they can't afford the heating bills any more.

But at least Putin will have a minor setback in his plans so, hell all the thousands dead and immiserated will be worth it. Oh! The look on his face! Priceless.

Is there another plausible outcome, I’d like to hear it? — Punshhh

I doubt that. There's an entire internet full of alternative narratives, if you've seriously not come across any it seems hard to believe that you're actually interested in one.

That's all very interesting. What's missing is any reason at all to believe you above the experts at the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.

Or indeed. Chatham House...

In Syria, Russia showed that it now had the capabilities to challenge what it saw as the US’s monopoly on the use of force on a global level and to get a say in the course of events relevant to its national interests. Certainly, this will have to factor into the West’s use of military force in certain situations in the future, because the danger of spiralling tensions and escalation with Russia will need to be taken into account. — Bettina Renz, School of Politics & IR, University of Nottingham - International Affairs

...or some random dude on the internet...

You can start with learning what's meant by "superpower." — frank

Scholars generally agree on which state is the foremost or unique superpower—for instance, the United Kingdom during the Victorian era and the United States during and immediately after World War II—but often disagree on the criteria that distinguish a superpower from other major powers and, accordingly, on which other states if any should be called superpowers. — Britannia

'Wrong' experts again, I suspect.

By quantifying specific metrics of our biology we see that conditions that favor our well being are promoted by moral behavior from our peers and us. — Nickolasgaspar

What metrics?

Pleasure is not a metric for well being on its own. Again the definition of well being includes all the members, not just the member who is affected by a rule. — Nickolasgaspar

OK, so to test whether some behaviour is moral we have to put all the members of the society it effects into fMRI scanners, test for cortisol, oxytocin, in every one (or a stratified sample?). Then what? Do we average the results, use consensus? What's the threshold above which an action is immoral? How much of these chemicals is worth individual autonomy? what a rise in oxytocin coupled with a rise in cortisol, how do handle such a complex reactions as that? What about temporary spike in stress response followed by a subsequent drop in the long term?

And finally, when we've got all these measures. Ought we follow them? Another round of tests I assume...?

I referred to our ability to quantify Well being just to point out how moral acts reinforce those same metrics that our biological mechanisms strive to serve. — Nickolasgaspar

I'm aware of your intentions, but the effort failed as you've failed to show that we have any such ability, nor that moral acts reinforce those metrics. For every metric you mention it seems moral acts reinforce some and worsen others depending entirely on subjective choices about long-term gains and the relative value of individual autonomy vs the rest of society.

You claim has been one of objectivity. You can't cite our society happening to do something as evidence of objective moral facts. — Isaac


I don't understand your question, can you elaborate? — Nickolasgaspar

You're saying that some moral acts actually harm the well-being of individuals - sometime temporarily (as in the child denied sweets), sometimes in exchange for the well-being of society (as in the prisoner). It is then a subjective choice. Weighing short term loss against long term gain, weighing individual autonomy against societal harms. These are (as things stand in your theory) still completely subjective. You've offered no objective algorithm for deciding them.

If we find (using you biochemical metrics) that individual A doing activity X causes a massive rise in his 'well-being-o-meter', but a tiny drop in the 'well-being-o-meter' of the whole of society, is activity X now immoral? Does A's freedom to do X count for nothing? If not, then how much does it count and what biochemicals tell us what weight to give it?

If we find (using you biochemical metrics) that individual A doing activity X causes a small rise in his 'well-being-o-meter' now, but a large drop in his 'well-being-o-meter' in ten years, is denying him activity X now moral? Does A's personal hyperbolic discounting count for nothing? If not, then how much does it count and what biochemicals tell us what weight to give it?

I think you're capable of doing a little research. — frank

Indeed I am. I did a DuckDuckGo search for "is Russia a military superpower"

Hit one

So, we can safely say that Russia isn’t a superpower, right? Let’s look at other opinions.

Some leaders and political scientists, however, still sometimes refer to Russia as a superpower: for instance, in July 2018, Austria’s Chancellor Sebastian Kurz called the summit between Putin and Donald Trump a good sign of “cooperation between two superpowers

Mixed picture, there then.

Hit Two

For 2022, Russia is ranked 2 of 142 out of the countries considered for the annual GFP review. It holds a PwrIndx* score of 0.0501 (a score of 0.0000 is considered 'perfect'). This entry last updated on 04/09/2022.

World Number 2. Not convinced yet...

Hit Three.

What are the 5 super power countries?

Power

United States.
China.
Russia.

Not really the compelling evidence we were after.

Pushing on. Hit Four.

Just stats about their military power showing the US and Russia to be equal in many areas, unequal in others.

Hit Five.

War Proves Russia Is No Longer a Superpower

Ah ha! Jackpot! Yet, "David Von Drehle is a columnist for The Washington Post, where he writes about national affairs and politics from a home base in the Midwest." - Hardly the cutting edge of military analysis, but still - an interesting read

Hit Six.

The US, Russia, and China are considered the world's strongest nations when it comes to military power

Late success seems to be waning...

Shall I go on, or are you going to point me in the 'right' direction?

-what? nobody talked about what causes change in homeostasis. — Nickolasgaspar

You argued that Immoral actions were those which caused a disruption in well-being which could be measured by a change in certain biochemicals. Changes in biochemicals away from base levels is a change in homeostasis.

The actions that "ruffle" those fragile chemical balances can be evaluated. Again this doesn't mean that any action that affects the desire for pleasure of a kid qualify as immoral. As we have established in previous comments well being is more than pleasure and social rules. — Nickolasgaspar

We haven't established that at all. I asked you for a definition of well-being which excluded a child being denied sweets and so far you've only provided me with a definition which includes such a response.

-Again...our biology receives all the "blows" from acts that are against our well being. Immoral acts do not manifest in a bubble above humans. — Nickolasgaspar

Right. So how do we establish, with the scientific rigour you're after, which of the many potential 'blows' was responsible for the chemical changes you're claiming as a measure of well-being?

Says our action to remove them from our society for a necessary period of time. — Nickolasgaspar

You claim has been one of objectivity. You can't cite our society happening to do something as evidence of objective moral facts.

Do you think that its not an objective fact that a child molester should be removed from the society and learn that members of it won't put up with his actions? — Nickolasgaspar

Yes, absolutely. I don't think it's an objective fact that a child molester should be removed from the society and learn that members of it won't put up with his actions. I just think that a child molester should be removed from the society and learn that members of it won't put up with his actions.

these are people that should be taken seriously. — Manuel

Yeah, astonishingly reckless complacency from those advocating escalation. It really highlights for me how it's zeitgeist, not expertise that drives these kinds of opinion.



That's one way of looking at it. Trouble is, as I'm sure you'll admit, it's only one of many plausible narratives. It's also the one most likely to lead to escalation if it's adopted. So I can't see why anyone would deliberately choose it, even if they feel it's more likely. It's just not a very helpful narrative to propagate

Read some contemporary political science and get yourself up to speed. — frank

Will do. If you could cite me a good contemporary political science source arguing that Russia is no longer a military super power, I'll get stuck in.

wouldn't likely launch WW3 now. — ssu

Oh well, you should have said earlier! If it isn't likely then you crack on, 'cos 'not likely' is a perfectly good enough probability to work to for a third world war. As long as it's less than 50/50 let's keep pushing that boundary. I mean, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists say

For many years, we and others have warned that the most likely way nuclear weapons might be used is through an unwanted or unintended escalation from a conventional conflict. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has brought this nightmare scenario to life — Bulletin of Atomic Scientists

...but what do those guys know. We've got some completely unqualified laymen we can consult.

Russia
Global superpower

Might want to rethink that — Count Timothy von Icarus

For 2022, Russia is ranked 2 of 142 out of the countries considered for the annual GFP review. It holds a PwrIndx* score of 0.0501 (a score of 0.0000 is considered 'perfect'). This entry last updated on 04/09/2022. — https://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.php?country_id=russia

...or we could go with the opinion of some random dude off an obscure social media forum...

it'd still be a good deal less than what Russia did in Vietnam to counter the US — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, 'cos Vietnam is a model we should all be striving for. Napalm anyone?

I don't think they think they are in a particularly good place to use that threat. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Well, up to the moment you provide any kind of qualification and position which might give cause to take your ad hoc reckoning seriously, you'd need to provide some credible expert assessment we can look at on that.

what are you going to do, let Russia invade all of their neighbors because they will threaten to attack civilians with nukes every time they lose a war? — Count Timothy von Icarus

So war or submission are your only options. Turns out you did learn diplomacy from a fucking pack of football hooligans after all.

There is a lot more the West could do to ruin Russia's day, even without supplying manpower.

Giving Ukraine longer range missiles and technical assistance using them would make these multi-mile long convoys into death traps and greatly reduce the likelyhood that Russia can get its new offensive rolling. They have pretty garbage anti-missile defense. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Sure, because Russia's anti-missile defense is the only issue to worry about when one global superpower provides weapons to attack another global superpower with enough range to reach into their territory. Shall we insult his mother as well, I don't think we've quite done enough yet to really rile up the nuclear armed psychopath. Did you learn diplomacy from a fucking pack of football hooligans?

You do realise that Russia can and will use chemical weapons with impunity, right?
For two reasons, it is what they have previously demonstrated to do, it’s in their playbook and they are safe behind a veil of plausible deniability. — Punshhh

Yes. I agree.

The problem is this...

Russia says it's not the aggressor, not evil because blah, blah, blah

The West says Russia is the aggressor and evil because... well, they are.

But the West then goes on to exaggerate, decontextualize, and outright lie to make Russia out to be even more the aggressor, even more evil than there is sufficient evidence to show.

Russia says "see how the West fabricate and propagandize to make us look aggressive and evil", which there's no denying we do.

Voilà. Waters successfully muddied. Now it looks like it's an open question who the aggressor is depending on whose propaganda you believe.

And it's useful idiots repeating the excessive claims who've allowed that strategy.

I don't think there are any yet. — frank

Well then your suggestion that...

Confirmation from multiple sources is usually given weight — frank

...seems off. Claims from a single biased source that the US were hiding biological weapons in Ukraine were, quite understandably, given quite vitriolic short shrift. Claims that Russia are planning to use chemical weapons, from no less partisan a source, are discussed as meaningful news.

It sounds a lot more like evidence which conforms to the zeitgeist is given more weight, no?

the Russians already threatened to use chem weapons — frank

Well, that adds some weight doesn't it. What are your "multiple sources" for that?

Confirmation from multiple sources is usually given weight. — frank

Cool. That's why I was asking about the other sources for this claim. Do you have them?

Indeed. But if the source of a claim is a far-right organisation with a history of anti-Russian activism, it might be worth mentioning that when presenting their evidence against Russia?

As I've said to @ssu earlier, if a common Russian propaganda tactic is to claim Western anti-Russian bias clouds the facts, it's hardly helpful to give them ammunition to that effect. A Russian source claiming Ukrainian intent to use chemical weapons would, quite rightly, be treated with deep scepticism. If we don't apply the same principle to a far-right, anti-Russian source saying the same of Russia, then we're literally playing into the hands of Putin's propaganda by acting out the role of 'anti-Russian, biased propagandists' that he's made for us.

The act of keeping kids from satisfying their opioid rewarding mechanisms in their brains doesn't qualify as an act against their Well Being. — Nickolasgaspar

You said well-being was measurable by...

Stress hormones or the presence of endorphins to deal with pain or the lack of metabolic molecules due to undernourishment or the absence of oxytocin during social interactions — Nickolasgaspar

You will see spikes in those chemicals when you deny a child sweets. So are you now saying that's not how we measure well-being? In which case you'll need to revise your answer to that question.

their well being is not linked to the well being of the society any more. — Nickolasgaspar

Says who? I thought you were arguing all this was objective. Where's the scientific fact that tells us a prisoner's well-being is no longer tied to the well-being of society?

Feeling are how we are informed that we i.e. have low blood sugar, thirsty, suppressed, happy etc etc thus affecting our biological chemistry even more. its a top -down- top causation recorded by our chemistry and it can be used to objectively diagnose whether an organism experiences situation that promote his/her well being. — Nickolasgaspar

It can't, for the reasons I've given - 1) Underdetermination - there are too many uncontrolled-for factors for us to say which one caused the change in homeostasis, and 2) Timescale - some activities (like exercise) cause a negative change in homeostasis in the short term but lower the rate of such changes in the long term as the body adapts, so the valence of most factors cannot be determined by immediate assessment of the impact on biochemistry.

We already know from our biology what we "should value". What we need to do is construct a society that servers those values (our well being). — Nickolasgaspar

We know nothing of the sort. Our 'biology' can only tell us that something in the entire current and recent past environment as caused a biochemical response which we, at the time, describe as a negative one.

It does not tell us which factor in that environment was responsible for the change in biochemistry, nor can it tell us how to value that change at the time compared to the value we might place on it afterwards. and none of that is even touching yet on the degree of construction between the lower level models interpreting bodily signals and the higher level models responsible for responses such as expressing negative emotions.

So Stress hormones or the presence of endorphins to deal with pain or the lack of metabolic molecules due to undernourishment or the absence of oxytocin during social interactions(lack of trust) etc etc are not objective metrics of well being?????? — Nickolasgaspar

I suspect they probably are, but you'll find an increase in stress hormones in a child denied sweets, you'll find a decrease in oxytocin in a prisoner. You dismissed both as measures of well-being.

Do you even know what Homeostasis is? — Nickolasgaspar

I do indeed know what homeostasis is, I'm not sure what it has to do with our valuing well-being.

Do you really think that well being is a ''bubble" in our world without any connections to our biological nature? — Nickolasgaspar

No, I doubt that.

Actions affect our biology either physically or mentally and we can objectively measure the impact by observing our chemisty and brain function. — Nickolasgaspar

At the time we can, yes. How do you propose we measure the effects of our actions after a decade via observing our chemisty and brain function.

No, just the media reports and the Azov video. — Punshhh

I see. It's just that the latest from American officials was that

there is no evidence Russia has brought any chemical weapons near Ukraine — https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/us-using-declassified-intel-fight-info-war-russia-even-intel-isnt-rock-rcna23014

I was wondering if that had changed.