This was, relatively speaking, an outsider to your field?

I'd heard that "ethicist" is a profession now. Was their expertise helpful? Can you describe that for us a little?

This was in a medical context. The head of the Ethics Committee was trained in medical ethics, but was a practicing MD, though his medical expertise was rarely called upon, whereas his ethical chops served as proxy ethical "training" for the rest of us who were not trained. That is, he corralled our thoughts and kept us from straying off course.

Exactly. Treating a relative label, like masculinity, as an absolute descriptor, is a fundamental error.

Exactly, in all issues of morality (itself being entirely a subjective endeavor) any conceivable viewpoint is likely a functionally "moral philosophy".

I think there's something presumptuous about philosophers, who lack the expertise and knowledge, however flawed and limited, of a field's practitioners, swooping in to pass judgment on their work. Better to cultivate the practice of critique among the producers of knowledge

As a field practitioner who served on the Ethics Committee for my field, the input of a professional ethicist I found to be valuable. Not essential, but valuable. Though a third person observer may label my comment as an example of the Dunning Kruger effect.

It's common to see discussions centred around such terms as Islam and capitalism, and an assertion or question to do with them. Something along the lines of "Is Islam really a religion of peace?" or "The Effect of Capitalism on Culture" wouldn't be out of place on any philosophy forum

True. The umbrella (or "open to different interpretations") term I have weighed in the most recently is: vengeance. As in "do you approve of vengeance?"

Soooo... if your mom is crazy hot, that changes your calculation how?

Hmm. Are you suggesting these are sciences where "value" enters in? Because, just to continue the science/philosophy dichotomy, you could call those the quantitative measures of those fields. Stipulating the psychology is of the behaviourist flavour. Valuing psychological evidence isn't evidence of the existence of 'ought' type values

Well, psychology saying we "ought" not be antisocial is valuing the common outlook over the outlier 2% that (let's be honest) preys on the other 98%. Just as economics saying we "ought" to make macroeconomic changes to encourage growth at the expense, say of inhabitants of where resources are mined.

It is the norm, yes. But the context gets serious when your mother is involved. You would not speak about "folks go without" because your sense of attachment to a beloved member would make you think otherwise or at least more seriously. I think this is the "dilemma" that @Paul proposed. The context changes fully when a mother is included

Exactly, it does change. You pick your mom, therefore no dilemma. The 20 year old just stands in line with the 30, 40, 50 and 60 year olds.

Where did your beliefs about cars come from? You didn't develop your beliefs in a vacuum. At some point you saw a car, or were told about cars, or interacted with cars.

Not necessarily. If I see lightning, I can develop a belief that lightning is caused by my ancestors being angry, in the complete absence of experience with my ancestors being angry causing lightning. I can synthesize my belief de novo from individual experience with lightning, stories that my ancestors existed and personal feelings of anger.

Definitely. Ecology values diversity and native species. Economics values wealth creation. Psychology values psychological "norms".

These so called "dilemmas" aren't really dilemmas. Scarcity guarantees that someone will go without. That isn't a tragedy (to be avoided), it a reality, frankly an extremely common one. Folks go without, it's the norm. Any method (including flipping a coin) of distribution of limited resources will leave someone without.

Humans can label this or that distribution strategy as better or worse, but of course these relative descriptors are entirely subjective and completely dependant on perspective.

Uummm... there's no such thing as a "true" tax rate, including paper gains on investments.

I don't see any need for a label

Uummm... how do you communicate what others call "racism"?

That’s a good question. It’s not that Bezos has no income — he does. Millions (even billions) cash on hand. Repaying a loan isn’t difficult, especially when the interest rate is so low. But the point is to avoid paying taxes

Well if he's got billions in income, he's theoretically paying income tax.

It would be devastating for society (meaning the economy), not because of a lack of workers, but because of a lack of customers, long before they would have reached the age to join the workforce.

Of course, it would be fantastic for the planet.

Uummm... where do the loan repayments come from?

Philosophically, a deity may be said to transcend the subject-object distinction.

Sure, humans CAN say that, though there is no objective (only inter-subjective) evidence of it.

Well since the majority of sexual relations are NOT a commodity, the latter.

Got your point. Thanks for explaining since it is an uncommon take on the wording that I wouldn't have guessed if you hadn't explained it. What's your alternative label?

Exactly. Gods cannot be separated from human narratives, since gods exist inter-subjectively, not objectively. Identically to the way that countries, corporations and the value of money exist, ie by human consensus.

Uummm... never useful, eh? Becsuse racism and sexism don't exist?

I agree that "racist" more accurately describes situations or rules than people.

Exactly. When it comes to human opinions, being certain is about as meaningful as the amount of effort it takes to say "oops" when what one is certain about is shown to be in error.

Well the term "absolute" is relative, as it is compared to a reference standard. The question is: who gets to decide what is the standard? Thus the question devolves into a question of perspective.

The ability to attribute a reproducible observation to culture vs genetics (innate) for armchair observers, such as ourselves (as nonprofessionals in the field) is perhaps asking more than we can reasonably provide. But no matter, if we can successfully use our understanding based on our experience, (since we only interact with others within our broader culture), it doesn't matter if the "universality" of our understanding is limited to everyone we know or applies to all humans who have every lived.

Oh I am not wedded to particular labels, I'm mostly drawing conceptual distinctions that delineate true differences in technological achievements as well as their relative capabilities and limitations.

Not so much. Using words in the description of a subject is using the absolute definitions of those words.

Don't be coy, please expound for us these other, ahem, factors.

Well 538 has him running ahead in the primary polls and primaries pull the most rabid voters.

What's the confusion? These are well understood and accepted concepts (this thread notwithstanding). To label something as "tall" is a relative descriptor, to label something else as having a height of 6 feet is an absolute descriptor.

True AI is machine learning such that the computer advances it's programming without a human programmer. Simulated AI is clever human programming made to simulate independant thought, specifically designed to fool humans into thinking the product is of human origin.

Current conventional computers analyze data. Interpreting that analysis is currently the domain of humans. Say AI takes over that role and is better at it than humans. As I see it, there is a limit to how much "better" AI can be over humans. If human analysis is 85% of optimal, the very best AI can only improve on humans by 15%. Not too earthshattering by my estimation.

Currently there is no true AI, there is simulated AI. However, even simulated AI can replace numerous workers in middle management and low level creative fields. This can/will have a devastating impact on employment and thus the economy as well as social stability.

As to future, true AI, the way it becomes dangerous in Sci Fi stories isn't the AI itself, rather that humans abdicate their authority (and thus power) to computers. Human psychology being what it is, I'm not too worried about that. Besides putting a computer in charge of the nuclear launch codes doesn't seem dramatically more risky than having them under the control of certain recent controllers of them...

Your comment, while true, can only be verified through analysis of climate, not weather.

As to legalization or at least decriminalization (which I prefer), a good balance is to prosecute for the crime of pampering, but not for prostitution

Well sexual relations are in demand and thus can act as a commodity. Trading in that commodity can thus constitute a business. Referring to the business as a whole would make it an industry.

Not so much. Hurricanes, floods and wildfires are a normal part of earth's climate, thus observing a single episode tells the homeowner nothing about the relative state of the climate, say comparing preindustrial to current climate temps.

What citizens notice and the News broadcasts comment on is weather, not climate. Climate is measured by scientists, not felt in your back yard.

Of course weather is broadly influenced by climate, but only broadly.

There are lots of smart women attached to dumb men. You have heard of the attractiveness of "bad boys", right?

It is my understanding that in a closed universe that the Big Bang is preceded by the Big Implosion

That is an internally consistent, though unpopular view. Let me guess, no one in your family has been a victim of fraud, right?