Quit with the antinatalism discussion. It's not the subject of the thread but now dominating it.

it is so, we have current observation and enough data of the past 800,000 years to know it ain't going to happen to be relevant for global warming and possibly not at all for the next 100,000. But then that requires you to actually understand the science.

So at least another 2000 years before we really notice anything. As I said, too late to make a difference and therefore it has no place here.

250 million people will be directly affected due to rising sea levels by 2100 and that's assuming we can reach the 2030 goals, which it's quite obvious we won't. When's the next ice age expected again?

Climatologists do speak with such confidence, just not in their scientific papers. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/science/flooding-of-coast-caused-by-global-warming-has-already-begun.amp.html

So stop your obfuscation in a misplaced attempt to think you're trying to do science.

Oh, I don't know Tate, how about the documents about reglaciation you yourself sourced and when we could expect an ice age at the earliest based on that and then comparing that to the IPCC reports on when we can expects coastal areas to disappear due to rising sea levels?

Do you have any more disingenuous questions or is that it?

It's 100% certain it won't happen naturally anytime before the climate crisis of global warming displaces and kills millions.

Except of course she was investigated by the FBI for just that.

I’m reading what you wrote. We’re talking past each other. I’m arguing about moral behavior; you’re arguing about moral outcomes.

Like I said, I think moral outcomes are illusory in the sense that they are never moral enough, an infinite regress, so one needn’t concern himself with such thoughts. Had you known the woman’s kids might go hungry you might buy the more expensive chair. She spends the money on booze instead. She gets drunk and kills a family in an accident. Regardless of the outcome you acted morally. — NOS4A2

The difference is that you claim a moral right to the outcomes merely because you followed the rules. My point is that merely following the rules does not result in such a right if that outcome isn't moral. I subsequently put forward that since the market mechanism (or actually the price mechanism) doesn't take into account moral considerations, it will result by definition in immoral outcomes.

Your example above and point about the regress are valid points but then I never claimed acting morally and taking responsibility for the consequences of our choices is easy.

True. My hesistance to commit to anything absolutely true other than those true by definition is that the OP required us to be "sure" about our absolute truth. For me, certainty in a rational sense should leave no room for doubt (like a properly constructed logical argument for instance) and since we have two possibilities it might not be true, I wouldn't commit to it. That said, from a more practical point of view, I don't have any reason to doubt the veracity of the 2nd law of thermodynamics at any moment in my waking life.

The forum is improving - no "existence exists" yet.

I wouldn't dare to commit to this one by the way:

Total entropy of closed systems (e.g. post-planck era universe) cannot decrease. Corollary: local order is a transient phase-state (i.e. aspect) of global disorder.

Have you heard of Poincaré's recurrence theorem? In short: a closed system in thermodynamic equilibrium will (if you wait long enough) randomly reach a state of lower entropy, And then increase again, so you get fluctuations in entropy. Moreover, if I may refer to one of my favourite little books "The Character of Physical Law" Feynman makes a good case for physical laws to be symmetrical and therefore in theory allowing for objects to fall upwards, time to flow in reverse and entropy to decrease.

@180 Proof I want points for calling it early: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/726875.

You don't see any difference between American institutions, presumably acting within the framework of the rule of law as set out in its constitution and other statutory laws, and Trump pressuring Zelensky, by withholding 400 million USD that was mandated by congress, to dig up dirt on a political opponent in relation to what was then already debunked as a conspiracy theory?

Did Biden instruct the DOJ? Did Biden instruct the January 6 commission? If not, I really don't see what the point is you're trying to make other than expressing your undying and uncritical support for Trump as we've come to know you.

Source? I'm pretty sure Trump gets called a fascist not because of his suggestion to investigate Biden or Clinton but goading paramilitary organisations like the Proud Boys, undermined the governor of Michigan, tried to overturn the election result, hired officials with ties to white national groups, promised an all Muslim ban (and implemented rules toward that goal), emphatised with neo-nazis. While technically not a fascist, we can all see the way the wind is blowing and given half a chance he'd be only too happy to rule as a fascist - a prime example of "fascist creep" in US society.

The purpose is inferred from facts as they stand/appear to us. Objection sustained! — Agent Smith

Having a lively imagination is no excuse to misunderstand what possible interpretations exist. Biological facts do not support a teleological interpretation. Period.

No it isn't. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works to suggest we're programmed for a purpose.

That's not food for thought, that is a regression to Aristotlean teleology instead of taking into account what we know now about evolution.

Oh that point isn't as fine as you'd imagine, even lawyers call them "dawn raids". At least in the Netherlands and UK.

I'm amazed by those supporters though. If I ever get charged with something I want me some cheerleaders too.

Ha! Excellent timing! From your points, number 2 seems the most certain one with clear evidence but this raid isn't about that so there will be more fireworks.

Cue the vampire making excuses.

Given timetables and the likelihood of Trump winning the election (since we can rest assured thy economy will go down the drain), Trump is going to stall every indictment up to the SCOTUS and then self-pardon himself and wipe the DOJ clean of anybody with a whiff of respect for they law. A bleak but not an impossible scenario I think.

I think people's trust in political processes, especially in the US (but also where I'm from), is entirely misplaced. Your optimism is their reason for not doing more because they've now done enough to stay seated.

It's a feature. You're glad for nothing. Way too little too late. When are you going to shoot your politicians for genocide?

I can’t see how voluntary, consensual cooperation, whether in the market or elsewhere, is not moral behavior. — NOS4A2

You're not reading what I wrote. I'm not saying market actors act immoral but they cannot claim a moral right to market outcomes, because the market does not take into consideration the morality of a specific market transaction.

Just like playing a game of Yathzee has no moral effect (but it would still be immoral to cheat) so does a market transaction not have a moral effect because moral outcomes are not taken into account. Moral outcomes are not incorporated in the price mechanism.

An example, you're a carpenter and so is your neighbour. You build exactly the same chair. I need a chair, you ask 65 USD, the neighbour asks 70 USD. All things equal, I buy yours. The reason the neighbour asks more is because unlike you she doesn't have a spouse bringing in income but has to take care of her kids, which means she needs a slightly higher margin. Me not buying the chair means the kids go hungry this week. The moral outcome might be worth the extra 5 bucks to me but since in everyday life such circumstances aren't known, I'm not capable of making the choice. So morally, we have a suboptimal outcome in almost all market transactions even though I acted morally (since I didn't know better).

Your moral behavior seems an infinite regression because it doesn’t end, or at least ends where a vast number of improvements could still be made, and thus never be moral enough. Or it must satisfy some “moral outcome”, or be considered “morally optimal”, which it never does. — NOS4A2

Oh, so you do understand? So it's not that you can't see it, it's that you won't.

I already demonstrated a clear example where there's a fair exchange in the market but nonetheless there's no fair outcome. I'm not shifting language though, I'm demonstrating how markets came about and this was for reasons of efficiency and convenience.

The idea of a fair exchange of goods is really plucked out of thin air and I stand by my comment that at most we can say we"played by the rules" but that says nothing about the morality of market outcomes.

Markets are not concerned with fairness at all. We needed regulation to avoid worker exploitation, we needed regulation to combat pollution, we needed regulation to avoid anti-competitive behaviour. Now we need regulations around ESG to avoid the world burning and to hopefully avoid a biodiversity collapse. Why? Because the market mechanism in no way shape or form is concerned with moral outcomes. It never has and it never will.

The fact that people infer morality or a certain impartiality to the market, that whatever the market produces is good and correct is a pox on all our houses.

As to the goal of the system…a free market place aims at a fair (a moral goal) exchange of goods and services. — DingoJones

But this is simply not true. The market aims at an efficient exchange goods. They were developed for convenience not for moral reasons "let's meet in the town square each week to barter goods" instead of having to visit ten different people and having to travel all the time.

At most you can claim you followed the rules and "playing by the rules" is still moral. But the rules are not aimed at moral outcomes. To have a moral claim to a specific outcome, the system would have to take morality in consideration. Since it doesn't, a claim cannot extend beyond "I followed the rules" (eg. I at least acted morally).

Let's say I have a moral claim of ownership to a painting I made. Someone steals it. You buy it from him in good faith and a year later sell it onwards to someone else.

You and your buyer both have acted morally and in good faith. Nevertheless, you have no moral claim to the ownership of the painting because it was stolen from me.

EDIT: the point being, there's a difference between acting morally (upholding a contract, not stealing) and our moral claims to what we own.

Are you dense? This is totally not relevant to the argument. The argument is that the particular store I selected is not a moral choice but an economical one. The moral choice could be to directly buy from the farmer, or the small grocery store or order online from that new strap and compare each and every supplier before the outcome can be considered a moral optimal one. I should consider environmental impact and who needs it the most, knowing and weighing the personal situation of the people involved and dependent on the transaction and then there's the question of what a fair price should be - which tends to be too low as corporations live to externalise costs. So no, there no moral right for that store to claim payment from me, the claim is economic and legal.

"It's all Obama's fault healthcare is so expensive!" Evil governments!

Don't play dumb. Obviously I know "the market" isn't a human being. We're discussing market outcomes, which result from human interaction. Again, your argument is procedural. It's simple. This is the average market interaction. I go to the nearest grocery store because it's convenient and I buy what I need because I decided to make spaghetti bolognese. Nowhere did morality come into it.

Or, I need a part of my house renovated. I ask three builders for a quote. I select the cheapest. Nowhere did morality come into it. There's no moral argument that the builder winning the job is morally the most deserving. The point is you have no moral claim to be doing that work in the first place. It's merely that we agree that if two people agree on a job, that it should be done and considerations are exchanged but that's not because it's the moral outcome but because it's convenient.

You're so stuck in the procedural aspects of the transaction itself you confuse following the process with morality.

Fine, we'll go back to my original claim. I was merely being charitable that some people do try to take it into account but since there's a clear information deficit they cannot correctly pursue it. Happy? Let's go. What's your argument instead of this waffling?

Lmao. That must be why people, perfectly capable of working, are still starving, because the market takes care of them and why we needed environmental, health and safety laws to avoid mass deaths. Your claim is demonstrably false. The market mechanism does not result in moral outcomes because the fact that some people take them into consideration quite clearly doesn't result in overall just outcomes. You simply prefer to ignore the argument because your don't have a counter argument.

I'm not stating shit. I've argued my case that since you have no moral right to specific outcomes of market transactions if the market does not take into account moral considerations. Since it doesn't, you have no moral claim to that income, merely a procedural one. You simply ignore the argument. So, obviously if you have no right to it then it's just to take that income. That's the whole point. You have not established that you have a right to pretax income because there's no moral basis for it.

As I stated before, this is false. Repeating it, doesn't make it true. This is a procedural argument because we live in a society that recognises contracts but there's neither a legal nor moral argument that you have a right to pre-tax income. I already asked you to give the moral argument underpinning this. The market mechanism does not value moral outcomes, since it's not valued you cannot claim a moral right to whatever income you earn.

So? What moral or legal argument are you trying to make?

There's neither a legal nor moral argument that you have any right to pretax income.

Have you seen the documentary "Biggest Little Farm"?

What kind of nonsense is this? Wage slavery has only gotten worse. Why do you think minimum wage has been stagnant for over a decade? Because of exploitation.

Try Rawls, Hobbes, Rousseau.

Nice attempt at trolling. How about you quote some respected collectivist or communitarian thinker instead of trying to maneuver respondents to defend Stalin?

"Collectivism" as if it's a bad word. Lol.