I think I can only talk about the American system; but, the profit motive has driven a wedge between psychiatrists with their free trial Rexulti or Latuda, and the hard-working psychoanalyst that gets no freebies from big pharma due to not being able to prescribe them.

I had meant this thread to be as a response to the thread on Killing a Billion. Sorry for any confusion.

You don't go far enough. Let us avoid objects altogether!
Reality is just a game where you an I have to agree on some stuff; let's agree to disagree, and stop at that. No more of anything you can point at, only feelings and experience. — Louco

I don't quite understand your point. Are you saying that people shouldn't be treated as objects?

Libertarians don't think that everyone should ideally be on a level playing field — Terrapin Station

Then that's the issue right there. If they don't care or such, then monopolies, oligopolies and such will just expand their power in light of no regulation.

bump

Yeah, so everyone is biased and fickle. Therefore, what?

I butted out. Sorry, can't hear you. — Bitter Crank

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one ought to practice quietism. :blush:

In an unusually forceful statement, Wallows is telling me to butt out. — Bitter Crank

Not whatsoever Bitter Crank. I am saying that you have been cheated if nobody tells you, you can't recuse yourself, which is the choice any sane person ought to do.

I say recuse yourself, and the dilemma gets transferred to someone else, perhaps more competent about the value of the people who ought to survive or perish (unlikely).

Libertarianism is a tendency toward liberty. Not an absolute my-way-or-the-highway. — fishfry

Yes, it is; but, it is not a solution unless everyone is not playing on a level playing field, and I have created no straw men as much as I've tried in this thread. Thanks for pointing out the straw men that may have arisen unbeknownst to some or myself.

That is, the results that you think will happen are only speculative, or problematic. This is captured in the phrase many of us have thought or said on some occasion, "I thought I was doing the right thing." And the stronger case when you do not have control and know that you don't. — tim wood

These are epistemic conditions over which (a non-ignorant, pun intended?) individual has little "choice" over.

And bias, on close look and in a particular case, approaches irrelevancy - assuming people are trying to act in good will, and granted bias over many cases is very relevant. — tim wood

But, it is not. Bias is everywhere. Just look at my topic on prison populations. Rife with bias and some prejudice.

Problem with #4: a person with perfect knowledge will not be biased - because he knows - and therefore must act in accordance with what he knows. — tim wood

No, you misunderstand. Perfect knowledge is a term I borrowed from game theory pertaining to what you know about what others know ad infinitum. Omniscience doesn't have any bearing here. I had meant #4 to be in terms of what others would consider one biased, and it applies to everyone. Anyone who claims that they are not biased is excluded from the game.

And I think you have to offer us for current purpose a careful definition of "dilemma." If you can self-excuse yourself from the dilemma, then you're not in one. — tim wood

Not necessarily. As per the OP, recusal is still a choice, so any decision theory ethical dilemma must end in perfect closure with the choice to recuse oneself from making a decision. This is a very important point that many people don't realize or are never told when facing an ethical dilemma, which I suppose I'm trying to stipulate here. Which, BTW, I think is a cheat to say the least to not allow anyone to recuse themselves.

Recusal is a term of art at law. It really doesn't work with either ignorance or bias (although bias is a form of ignorance). — tim wood

That doesn't exclude it from being applied in ethical dilemmas of social good.

Bottom line, imo, is that a free agent may always choose. And having that freedom, he or she knowing that they are free, are in that freedom freed to do the best they can under their circumstance. And arguably are obliged to as a matter of duty. — tim wood

It's not a zero-sum game. Competence is a concept that arises here. The duty falls apart if the wrong person (one who doesn't apply the veil of ignorance) is fulfilling some duty.

The real problem, imo, is finding the right imperative by which to advise or even govern your decision. On those there is room or debate - at least until the right argument is found. I'm assuming the right argument will persuade all reasonable parties, and that it exists in all cases. — tim wood

Again, an epistemic concern. This is mitigated by appealing to authority, which is another issue entirely.

You recuse yourself and the human race ceases to exist. Good job ;) — I like sushi

Was that the alternative? Because if you want to game theorize this, you cannot have a sane person making such a choice....

Looks more like you’re avoiding the problem rather than facing it. — I like sushi

No, I am recusing myself, as I have noted. Anyone who claims to have a solution to your problem is the problem.

You explore what you would do or you choose not to. If you take the later you miss the importance of the problem. — I like sushi

But, let me present the dilemma to you in standard form.

1. You have a choice.
2. Your bias influences your choice.
3. You can choose to act on your biases or recuse yourself.
4. In a perfect world or with perfect knowledge, everyone realizes this and recuse' themselves.
5. Dilemma averted.

As an important point that reinforces 5 is through mandating that point number 4 be self-reinforcing through making sure that those who claim that they have a non-biased view on the matter be eliminated from choice making on the matter. Here I have in mind, RWA's or closet fascists or closet totalitarians if we are all liberalist or lovers of democracy.

I believe I have expressed what you are trying to say. That no ideal (non-biased) standard can be implemented if people are to decide who lives or dies. Isn't that the same idea expressed in any other ethical dilemma that involves (human, since you eliminated the possibility of a fair lottery in this case) decision making.

Tiif Tiff hurrays!

It's revealing to see some members so quick to find some "solution" to this problem, where there really is none. Those that would praise someone as "confident" or "non-apathetic" towards some proposed 'objective standard' is eye-opening.

Isnt that just a refusal to answer the question? In the scenario, every human being in world dies as you stand on a podium saying “do nothing, democratic method and reductio ad absurdum” before you yourself die. — DingoJones

Not necessarily. I would simply recuse myself due to bias. Hopefully, everyone would do that. Those that don't perhaps would qualify for extermination.

Ya, and? Are you saying forcing people to do something is never the answer? Forcing a population to do something is never the answer?
Or are you worried the practice will stick after the extinction of the human race is avoided? — DingoJones

I'm saying that no method ought to be applied, it inevitably leads to a reductio ad absurdom if we truly or sincerely believe in the democratic method.

I should explain. Any rationale (one of which I wanted to propose), such as a utilitarian analysis of the utility of each individual, or a rationale based on bias (genocide), promote a totalitarian and fascist approach to the problem. Without an objective standard (the only one that comes to my mind is a lottery), you are inevitably going to promote a totalitarian or fascistic approach to the problem. And, that's the reductio ad absurdom to the problem.

All answers lead towards fascism to the problem, so that's a reductio for ya.

What about my second argument? — Tzeentch

Violence as a good for society? Dunno about that.

Don't worry, the staff certainly aren't always the best judge of philosophical content. — S

Phanks broseph. Can we like exchange numbers and laugh at each other's misery in life or sumthin?

I already requested a psychology sub-forum to be directed towards the Humanities and Social Sciences one. I would like to see guidance and advice one implemented if possible.

Just joking with you. Forum sociopath.

Ahh, @S, has done it again. I suppose the only place for such a pathetic OP is the lounge.

Your goal should be to develop a strong ego, I suggest rather than trying to be positive about things, interpret your negativity positively, give yourself a story of your value. — Judaka

Well, a disabled person has little of vale to offer in some utilitarian sense. I also thought about developing a strong ego but that's like inflating a punctured balloon.

That's for the rest of the advice though.

Does wallowing count?

How?

Nu. Nu. Bad S ...

Hmm Christ on a bike, that is a new one on me :pray:
Now about the chocolate.... :yum: — ArguingWAristotleTiff

No chocolate. Only wallowing.

It's true, and you know it. — Tzeentch

I don't know it for sure. I feel as though women can just as well carry on with the same tasks that males do with equal or even greater efficacy.

If you look out of a window in any big city, the vast, vast majority of what you see was invented, designed and built by men. — Tzeentch

But, that is confirmation bias, and you know it.

So, what other bias will you present here?

No, I'd say men are much more useful. — Tzeentch

By what measure?

I don't mention feminist philosophers much because "feminist philosopher" always struck me as being akin to something like "gardener philosopher" or "Bolo tie-wearing philosopher." — Terrapin Station

How can that be? Just the fact that they're women?

Complaint clinic success!

First heard of them.

Thanks for sharing. Edifying read.

Yes, the dogs kept him warm at night.

On disability and have nothing to do.