I heard Trump is a liar and raped minors! I wouldn't doubt it! Where's the investigation?

Some of the comments here. I feel like banning the shit out of some people just to raise the level of sanity of this thread.

So, can we blame these losses on Trump? Loeffler's apparent insider trading? Perdue's anti-semitic gaffs and ridicule of Harris? Or is it thanks to Democratic organising in Georgia this time around with great voter turn out?

It's just interesting already to read through the press releases of the World Food Programme and compare December 2019 and December 2020: https://www.wfp.org/news?text=&page=11

the shallow, callous, conservatism of Europeans, — StreetlightX

Oi. We're not callous just... cavalier. Also, our economy is tanking so who cares about a bunch of nobodies dying of hunger in a place I can't even correctly point out on a map?

But he doesn't need to "find" them, he can just "recalculate" it. Because 1 +1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1n can easily be recalculated as

$\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{n^2} = \frac{\pi^2}{6}$

Bad metaphysics which they handwave at as "semantics" is my experience.

Lindsey Graham said it and we all know he's totally legit.

That the strain is not particularly more infectious but mostly the result of lax lock down rules in the UK.

I just realised my earlier comment in this respect was in the Brexit thread. See here : https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/482007

I'm really curious what's up with the UK strain now. There's news it's popping up in different parts of the world. At the same time we see it also popped up earlier in the Netherlands and now also confirmed in November in Germany. My money is still on human stupidity but I'm not so sure anymore.

I must've missed it but where did he suggest he'd go around beheading people or advising it?

Just ignore Hippyhead. He thinks he knows what he talks about but I've never seen a post of his containing any level of analysis.

Who actually writes the bills then if Congress had no clue what's in it? Aren't they supposed to be the legislative branch? Hint hint. The US is even a bigger joke than I thought if the pork want added by Congress members themselves.

Thanks for that. Looks pretty bad and a bit predictable.

I consider it unlikely as well because they couldn't time this but I'm wondering why you think it is so. Certainly not because it would be irresponsible and morally reprehensible?

We can be short about this one. Banno is applying the common linguistic meaning of proposition and creative soul is talking about the philosophical term. Both right but talking about different things. Next!

Ok ok, so according to US law it isn't bribery... Or here's a ton of money and next time I'm an ambassador. That's isn't bribery either and certainly never happened.

The genomes of the various varieties have been tracked from the beginning across the globe. The variant now being blamed in the UK has been around since September already and only now is high-lighted as problematic. As of yet, there's not definitive proof that the strain really is more contagious than other strains. I personally find it highly unlikely considering how long the strain has already been around. We've should've seen spikes in other areas before but we haven't. The Netherlands had exactly 1 confirmed case of this strain back in September.

Mike Ryan, executive director of the WHO’s health emergencies program, said it was unclear if the increase in spread in the U.K. is due to the mutation or human behavior.

“We’ve seen an estimate of a small increase in the reproductive number by the U.K.,” he said, meaning the virus is spreading faster, which could mean it is more contagious or spreads more easily in colder months. It could also mean people are getting lax about following public health protocols. “It remains to be seen how much of that is due to the specific genetic change in the new variant. I suspect some.” — CBS article

The area of the UK suspected of having to deal with the new strain was in Tier 2 restrictions until 17 December. Which means basically everything was open.

My money is on human stupidity and lax rules.

The policy question to ask here is whether the long term damage to life expectancy and health as a result of the lock down, which inevitably will result from the economic downturn, are not worse than the lives we're saving by having the lock down. Has any research been done on that anywhere? Because I see it argued by some economists in the Netherlands but nothing backed up by numbers - just that it's a risk.

As a result, what we are missing is no discussion on what to do with the economic fall out after the pandemic passes. And again, this is the umpteenth crisis where, the rich still benefit. Just in the US, during the pandemic billionaires wealth increased by 36%. While I'm against having people suffer merely because others suffer, the correlation between the various crises seems to suggest that rich people benefit at the expense of others. If this is the case, then obviously we should remedy this.

Did Cicero make a legitimate point, or is this a case where Cicero the lawyer overcame Cicero the philosopher/statesman, and sanctioned violence? — Ciceronianus the White

Although I have only read Cicero via second hand accounts in relation to the just war theory, I see in my notes from 16 years ago (eek!) that he distinguished between civil wars and regular war. And like those before him he was of the opinion that wars were covered by different rules (but not lawless).

I'm not sure whether he considered this political spat a civil war. If he did, he was still being consistent with his beliefs. If he didn't, then he was still being consistent with his job as a lawyer, which is to represent his client to the best of his ability. In both cases he made a legitimate point.

That said, I would have to say that this doesn't constitute murder unless his client can be proved to have given the deadly stroke. That is the only way murder can be applied. I'm not an expert on Roman law but I suspect it did not have some of the criminal acts that modern criminal codes have defined. Nowadays we have crimes for the solicitation of violence and, at least in continental criminal codes (and probably anglo-saxon as well but I simply don't know), crimes for group violence leading to death. In the latter case, you only need to prove a person participated in the violence and that the combined violence led to that person's death not that a specific person caused a specific death. As a result the law can hardly be said to be silent on the matter by modern standards.

More generally, I do agree regular civil and cirminal laws break down at some point. I don't think the dictates of public conscience are silent then but simply cannot be enforced. So it's not a break down of law but a break down of an enforcement mechanism. We hope this is when ethics trump laws and civil disobedience or even rebellion become a moral imperative. Sadly, it's often due to power vacuums and the struggle of competing groups to fill that void without a clear moral high ground of one group over another.

Oh, that new strain that we've had in the Netherlands back in September exactly once? I think the fact pubs and stores were open is much more likely the culprit, combined with a superspreader event.

There will be a deal, whether one will be reached before Brexit takes effect is another matter.

:up:

I get the part about the lack of testing etc. and the lack of information wrt long term effects and whether it will even stop the pandemic.

I was under the impression that the basic technology has been around for 50 years. Is that still new in pharmacy? Sounds ancient.

Do the common complaints about vaccine testing, where it concerns "killed" viruses or replicated viral proteine, apply to mRNA vaccines though? Are, based on how they work, certain worries about safety still relevant here?

I don't know, I'm seriously asking.

Again don't think that this is implemented by an mutual open agreement. I doesn't have to. — ssu

Which is my point. There's no agency involved, it naturally emerges from a winner takes all system where plurality is enough and bribery is legal.

I don't think it's a loophole though but a serious logical error to pull in consent in this discussion. It's gaming the issue by demanding that there should be married bachelors and then pointing out there are no married bachelors as a moral reason there shouldn't be any married people.

I do agree with you that it's not the issue necessarily but will point out the problem when it occurs. I also say this earlier :

It's not well-stated at all because consent cannot play a role here because this is once again personifying non-existence as if it has thought processes and a will. And consent isn't even necessarily important for moral questions. Actions can be moral or immoral without another person being involved. Unnecessarily cutting down trees because I like destroying stuff isn't right either. Gluttony isn't right either. Lusting after your girlfriend even when nobody in the world is aware of it, isn't right either.

Why do you think the non-identity problem applies here? That concerns adjusting behaviour to avoid a problem for a future person which adjustment causes that future person being different from the one that caused you to adjust. Here there's a future person and the adjustment would lead to no person but this non person doesn't have an identity by definition.

Seems to be fundamentally different.

Thank you for sharing your emotions and opinion about it. I understand the empathy underlying such statements.

I think the conclusion is wrong though. Because other people are unhappy, I should be too, thereby increasing unhappiness? Seems to be the wrong way to go about it. Moreover poverty is in decline across the world and there's plenty we can do (and I think should do) to improve things. You might look into my thread on the "politics of responsibility".

You claim that the "chance of bad outcome" needs to be near 100% for having children to start to be considered wrong. — khaled

Yup. That's my personal moral intuition. I've also stated that other people may decide differently. A survival expert could decide to have kids in abject poverty and be able to provide for a stable and happy upbringing. I can't, so I wouldn't in that event and I assume most people in similar societies and positions as mine would as well. So the example serves as something that is probably true for a lot of people.

And you claim at the same time that putting the bar at >0% is wrong. On what basis?

I never said that. I said the question doesn't pertain to reality and as such the question is moot, because we cannot calculate the likelihood of an unhappy life. Even more so because I'm not a utilitarian so I don't even weigh ethical questions on the basis of their consequences.

If I would be a consequentialist I could use a proxy for the Netherlands the happiness figures of the World Happiness Report, which exceed 7.4 out of 10. And our own social and cultural planning bureau researched it and Dutch people on average gave their lives a 7.9 out of 10. 73% of employed people are (very) happy. Among the self-employed this is even higher.

So on average it makes perfect sense to have kids in the Netherlands as it's extremely likely they will be happy.

EDIT: https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2018/27/one-in-five-dutch-adults-very-happy

Only 2.6% is unhappy. Those are excellent odds.

I think the "polarization" is a means to keep the present system up. The worse the situation is for more Americans, the more polarized and poisoned the atmosphere has to be. The objective for those in power is that the power perpetually changes from one to the another in four to eight years. You see, the candidate who is depicted as "ultra-right" or "ultra-progressive" doesn't rock the boat as there will be enough of Americans who reject them on the other side. — ssu

I really don't think there's anybody out there planning this stuff. Representation of the monied interests is in place, regardless of who sits in what office. No need for the elite to have a special plan. They will lobby regardless of whether you're a Democrat or Republican and those receiving money clearly understand that having any political career means giving them what they want or you can forget funding your next.

The objective of those in power that you describe just confuses the fact that the objective for politicians is to win and in a two-party system they will alternate as a result. There's no silent or gentleman's agreement between GOP and Democrats to share power by alternating each other. If one could always win, they'd do whatever they need to make sure that happens. So we have gerrymandering and other voter disenfranchisement because it helps the GOP. The Democrats would do the same if it would help them.

And we see that both parties are both ideologically rudderless because of money being the primary driver of decisions. Since there's no essential ideological difference anymore, the only way to differentiate is to hurl shit. So it becomes toxic due to circumstances not as the result of some grand plan of elites. It's a simple fact that money buys you votes in the US.

This is the one hopeful note about the 2016 Trump win: that the election cycle isn't just about money.

Literally the first element of negligence claims: Duty. And the fact that we do not sue bystandards for negligence claims shows that we do not believe they have a duty to help. Unless it's their actual job, like firefighters or doctors. — khaled

And you are obligated to help because that duty is recognised in several places. An example for continental Europe (most countries have an equivalent).

Hij die, getuige van het ogenblikkelijk levensgevaar waarin een ander verkeert, nalaat deze die hulp te verlenen of te verschaffen die hij hem, zonder gevaar voor zichzelf of anderen redelijkerwijs te kunnen duchten, verlenen of verschaffen kan, wordt, indien de dood van de hulpbehoevende volgt, gestraft met hechtenis van ten hoogste drie maanden of geldboete van de tweede categorie. — Dutch criminal code

translation: He who, witnessing the immediate threat to life that another experiences, fails to act to provide such help or assistance that he can provide, without unreasonable danger to himself or others, will be punished with imprisonment of no more than three months or a penalty of the second category, if the death of the needy follows.

In the US Minnesota, Rhode Island and Vermont recognise a duty to rescue. Hawaii, Wisconsin and Washington require you to report crimes.

See, what I consider funny about all this is that first you confuse law with morality, they are not the same and second that you let your morality depend on what others think is right with the lovely result that your morality will change by crossing a border. That, my friend, is the result of your position and results in me "spouting nonsense" because that's what your moral framework amounts to.

I think you have interesting arguments but how come you disagree that we force humans into being? — Albero

Because I think it's confused. Just because we can make a grammatically correct sentence doesn't mean we have a meaningful sentence. What am I exercising force on? Not a person. So the sentence has no meaning.

The fact that I cannot find sufficient justification to force individuals to exist doesn't mean it is the same for others — Tzeentch

More metaphysical mumbo jumbo. The ability to exercise force on something presupposes its existence. Existence isn't a property. Sounds like a God complex to think you can create something out of nothing.

What a great society that would be! It's not the one we live in though. If society agrees about something there is generally a law to enforce it. This isn't a hard rule, but it is generally applicable. — khaled

Funny, you should say that. We do live in such a society and even have laws enforcing it even though I disagree law had much to do with morality.

Look op negligence. But good to know you have no intrinsic moral compass and are easily swayed by what others expect from you. :rofl:

You inject half way in discussions between other people and take things out of context.

What you quoted wasn't about improving life. It was an attempt to show the absurdity of the earlier premise, by pointing out the absurdity of the implication. — Tzeentch

You inject in my thread so whatever. I call out nonsense when I see it. What did "its" refer to again? You never answered but since everybody can read an understand sentences we already know.

He said as a hypothetical analogy. You are still not getting what I stated about a future person who will be affected. And that was what he is getting at. All you have to do is agree that you can make a decision that affects someone later that that person later could not possibly (by way of not existing), be a part of. — schopenhauer1

Except he made the mistake several times and even if it was a hypothetical analogy it's shitty one because of it.

You have given 0 factors or explanation. — khaled

But I have. I don't account for intrinsic suffering because those aren't caused by living. For proximate causes, if it's a near certainty the proximate cause will exist and cannot be avoided or alleviated then it makes sense to move up the causal chain.

I think you attribute too much agency to what essentially emerges from a political system that is ruled by money.

To expound a bit, generally it's a good rule of thumb not to kill people but sometimes it is. Generally, it's a good rule to be nice to people but sometimes it isn't. When it isn't has such a wide variety of reasons that it's no use to try to catch that in a general rule. It's enough to realise that almost every moral rule we can think of, can be provided with circumstances where the opposite is better.

So generally it's perfectly fine to have babies but sometimes it isn't.

When I said that I assumed it is not your job to save the drowning person, aka it is not your responsibility. A doctor already has a responsibility to save patients. Or else he wouldn't be a doctor.

You are responsible for what happens if you not being there would have resulted in the better outcome. But you can also be responsible in other ways, like jobs or parenthood, to prevent suffering that would have occured even if you weren't there. — khaled

What if society agrees it's everybody's responsibility to intervene, so it's everybody's "job" to save drowning people?