Exactly.

I remember when the pandemic was in its hardest moment, the accusations against people who were against the decisions of the politicians or they simply had a different opinion or argument towards the "plan" of facing Covid. If you weren't part of the "mass" they treated you as a criminal.

Interesting fact (and I don't want to bore you): our constitutional court ruled that our government was against both Constitution and the rest of laws because of the way they were facing the pandemic. They promoted laws avoiding the free access to different regions and even some politicians didn't had the right to go to Congress. Randomly, our government decided to act so badly and it looked like a dictatorship. Fortunately, this happened years ago and now I see it far away...

:up:

Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza/SARS‐CoV‐2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence).

We all were agreed in this point but you know, politicians tend to be stubborn and egocentric. They lasted three years to admit that wearing masks in the public transport is worthless...
They are happy living in their lies and fantasy worlds, while the rest of us were tired of wearing masks :mask:

It is official: we no longer have to wear masks in public transport after three years since this pandemic started!

No more masks on public transport in Spain from February 8.

The Minister of Health Carolina Darias confirmed today that the requirement to use masks on public transport was no longer necessary from Wednesday, February 8.
The change means that from tomorrow no masks will need to be worn on aeroplanes, buses and trains although everyone retains the right to do so. Masks, however, remain mandatory in health centres, hospitals and pharmacies.

I don't know about other European countries. — Vera Mont

Our minimum income is (rounding) around 1.100€ per month and that's the amount which is paid of larger group of workers but others are perceiving even less (rounding 795 and 900 € per month, which is an overall, more or less, 16K € per year).
Taking into account this social context, pur government established an "universal" healthcare system for everyone, not making a distinction between salaries. Some says is unfair because the richest are using a system while they are not paying so much taxes for. Others say that is cool to have that kind of access because otherwise it would be impossible for a large number of the population (and that's true) to get basic healthcare.
Yet, one of the main issues of this system, is the lack of investment by policies. This led a situation where people decide to opt for private insurance and public health-care is dying... a failure of the state indeed.

Japan — Vera Mont

Japanese system works so similar as you expressed in your last post.

In real life, hardly at all! The richest people in the world are taxed the least, and constrained the least by government regulation. — Vera Mont

True. One of the main problems inside the management of the societies is the big inequity among rich and poor classes. Nonetheless, it should not be a problem for the middle classes if the state is effective enough. Maybe this can only exist in dreams or my chipping head, but a good scenario could be the following one: The richest use private insurances and the poorest perceive the help of the state and social healthcare. I know it is difficult to achieve but that's how an equity society looks like

Your arguments are so interesting. I haven't been aware of an important point that you proposed: Who is worthy to receive organs?
I am trying to answer with a detailed response but this dilemma reminds me of taxation debate. It is accepted and ruled by modern societies that state's or social care support should depend on the effort of each contributor. It is just one of the basics principles to reach equity. If I pay a considerable amount of taxes, I have the right to "get recognized" in the future. So, I guess, the "queue" of organs receivers should depend in such basic taxation rule or [logic] law. Nonetheless, I am aware that is not an easy practice. There are a lot of debates among political theories which swing between paying more or less taxes and there are people who don't see public expenditure worthy at all.

Yet, in my humble opinion, it still be a equitable system to guarantee who is worthy to receive the organs.

But then, taking vital organs out of one person to save another from the same god's will to end his life, or using surrogates to thwart god's sentencing of a woman to sterility, was not in "our" culture until quite recently, and now we're comfortable with both. Logic follows: if it can be done, it can be legally mandated. — Vera Mont

It is true, but it is not a general topic and we have to look at each country's regulation or law system. Taking vital organs is forbidden in some states where the rule of law is based in pure religious practices such as Sariah.
We are comfortable with those acts because it is a good practice for some people. If we take a liver to help a sick person you will make him to live better or at least easier life.
It is not even close to cut up a person to eat him later on... it is lascivious and only a psychopath wants so anxiously to do so.

what am I missing then? If you can explain me, I would be so much appreciated.

but are especially Hollywood films become worse? — ssu

Exactly, and as you pointed out most of the users didn't type a film of the 2010's. I think the decline of cultural cinema is based on two important factors:

1. The youngest generations are not open to culture as old days and even the basic concept of art has diminished in the past decades. It looks like that we call art or culture to everything and this only leads to films with zero effort where the people only wants to see trivial scenes such as relationships, abusive sexual dialogues, violence, etc...
Note: I am sorry for being a millennial and I assume part of the responsibility of my weak generation. For example: I don't know anyone of my age who watched Yojimbo or had read Yukio Mishima, for example.

2. In the other hand, the money is now invested in Netflix or HBO series and other digital platforms. If you check the "top 10 series of this month" you would see that most of them are trivial or related to mafia or violence with zero clue or arguments...

Does the observer have to be conscious or are there non-living "observers"? — Agent Smith

First of all, why do you engage consciousness with living/non-living? There are livings who are not observes because they are not aware of anything. So, being alive does not imply being observer if I am not conscious enough around my scenario of reality, mind, ideas, persons, etc...

For example: A living dog is not conscious of metaphysical and philosophical enquiries, but at the same time, he is a living animal...

True. So, then, it's okay to cut up dead brain-people and package them to sell for meat? — Vera Mont

We reject cannibalism because it is not part of our "culture" and social norms. It is bad seen a human being eaten by another, but we already accepted the huge and savagely proportion of eaten meat of animals... just wait for it. Soon or later, those resources will be scarce and we'd need to eat humans and switch our culture and way of seeing things.
Conclusion of what I try to explain: nowadays is filthy and unethical to cut up a human to eat, but who knows what the future holds...

Philosophy struggles to define its own field and methodology [...] There is a version of the history of philosophy that identifies it as the chaotic starting-point of all other disciplines, which have spun off from it as they have developed through the chaotic discussions of philosophers. — Ludwig V

Perhaps, philosophy struggles to defines its own methodology because one of the main causes of this discipline is to be critical against methods used in previous academias or groups. Despite the fact that there were been many philosophers among all Western world, I think most of the doctrines and theories root from the same starting point: Ancient Greece.

If we look at Asian philosophy or culture, the scheme switches. It is different the disciplines of Confucianism and Daoism because these have as a cause the aim of pursuing wisdom and connection with nature. We will not see discussions on the verses of Tao Te Ching but just interpretations to get the meaning of our lives.

I don't want to diminish the great value of Western philosophy but I always wished I had more clear concepts and information about buddishm or the Analects of Confucius.

For example, people, some, are no longer interested in truth, they just wanna be happy. — Agent Smith

They decided a fake happiness avoiding reality or truth. Like when a drug addict consume narcotics because he is engage to the "fantasies" or "trips" that the drugs provide to him. Paradoxically, he wants to avoid truth but at the same time is addicted to an artificial lie :chin:

Who's even heard of him? — Banno

I have never heard about him either, but that's one of the main causes of this forum: to learn something new everyday. So, I did a research on what was the papers of R.M. Hare and I found interesting information: https://encyclopaedia.herdereditorial.com/wiki/Prescriptivismo

To analyze moral statements, Hare distinguishes the phrastic part and the neustic part. The first (phrastikon, from the Greek "to point") reflects the content of the statement, or what someone says; the second (neustikon, from the Greek "to nod one'), the position that the speaker advocates before said content, or the use he makes of the meaning of the statement. Thus, for example, "thou shalt not kill" can be broken down into his fastical, "men do not kill their fellowmen," and in his neustic, "and this is the conduct which I earnestly exhort you to put into practice."

I fear that doesn't work. Why is happiness good? — Agent Smith

Happiness does not depend on "good" or "bad". It is not a virtue but an objective. Aristotle claimed that happiness is a state of mind that every person aspire to achieve, because (and he was so right in his arguments) it is the main engine which makes the people to make and elaborate objectives, dreams, things, etc...

There was a very good episode of the TV series Boston Legal, wherein a widow donated her husband's body to a teaching museum https://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/to-do-today-see-inside-the-human-body-at-the-museum-of-sciences-body-worlds-exhibit/ and the daughter took possession, so she could bury it. — Vera Mont

Interesting.

But what I see is a crime committed by the daughter: Alan represents two clients, a woman who stole her late father's body from a museum.
If the widow already donated the corpse to the museum for scientific research, then the museum is now the legitimate "owner" of the corpse. The daughter is not legally covered to ask for the body of her father. Why she didn't opposed against the donation in the first place?

If they take the benefit, they should absorb the cost. — Vera Mont

I am agree, the state should absorb the costs of they take the benefit but here we have another dilemma because the state acts with public profits thanks to the taxes so those costs are already paid by the contributors. I mean, the state works thanks to our rents and tax payers, it is not particular neither a private corporation. The dilemma could be if the state should or not take those benefits the public administration when is based on public resources.

1. Is this clause generally known by the population as part of their civic obligation? I.e. is it explicitly articulated in law? — Vera Mont

Well, at least in my country is explicitly articulated in law. We have to check every state’s laws and see what they articulate towards the destiny of a dead corpse.

Having taken possession of the body for harvesting, does the state undertake the responsibility for dignified disposal of whatever is left? Or, having appropriated the useful bits, does it download that effort and expense on the family? — Vera Mont

According to same laws the efforts and expense needs to be taken by the goods and money he or she left in the inheritance. If these are not sufficient, it needs to be paid by the goods of the successors and ultimately, public funds if the state is held accountable.

Can't say ... You caught me off guard! — Alkis Piskas

:grin: I got the same feeling about the AI’s response!

Am I right in thinking you're suggesting that because these decisions are made by judges and laws, a dead person's articulated informed consent is not required? — fdrake

Exactly, because I consider judges as authorities who are able to make decisions or confirm consents in name of someone who is no longer capable to do those acts.

How do brain-dead human beings become the exclusive and legitimate holdings of this organization? — NOS4A2

Those organizations (supposedly) are there to help others or preserve nursing and caring. If they are aware of someone who dies and their organs can help others, they can ask a judge to authorize organ donation on behalf of that person to preserve the health and life of others.

I fully respect your arguments and words but I think you misunderstood my views on this thread or topic.
One of the main debates is to consider if a third person can decide on someone's interests when such individual is no longer available to do it by himself. The judges (or prosecutors in some special cases) hold this power to decide in the best interests of the persons or community involved. As I said previously, the law is applied to get equity not to solve ethical issues because that would be so ambiguous and the results could not be satisfactory at all.
But this is not an invention of modern states. Roman law already foresaw this judicial dilemma when the consent of someone was needed but impossible to get or provide. Then, jurists created civil figures to avoid these problems such as guardians, conservators, fiduciaries, the rule of the parents as authority etc... So, it is necessary to ensure such circumstances thanks to the guarantee of third parts who take the responsibility. This can be applied to make decisions toward donate someone's organs afterwards but there are some important examples as much as the subject of this thread. For example: People declared absent because they have disappeared and his whereabouts are unknown. I think it is necessary to ask a third person to please take care of such special issue. Thus, a judge can make decisions on the absent's interests without his permission. Otherwise, it could exists a lot of problems and difficulties just because we cannot get the consent of someone who we don't even know where is at...
Well, this is what happens to the dead people. Someone needs to make decisions in their names or persona because it is obvious that they no longer can do so.

But the treatment as an object, or consumer item, whose possession is to be legally decided presupposed its status as property. It is presumed the property of the occupant as long as he's in possession; his to leave in a will, like anything else he owns. There is nothing either ethical or religious about that: it's a thing that can be argued over, arbitrated, cut up, portioned out and used.
The only question here, who has a right to decide how it will be used, absent the owner's explicit instruction. — Vera Mont

If it is consider as one’s possession with the status as property, why suicide is condemned by both religion and laws? Because someone needs to take responsibility in a public order and whatever I would do with my body it would make a reflect act. I don’t see that we are so free as long as we keep alive to decide on the volunteerism of the free will in our bodies.
In the other hand, I still think that the only third part capable of deciding on other someone’s interests can be the judges. As I said, each of us have a lot of private interests but the public order is over to self care.

I want to be an owner of different buildings in Madrid but at the same time I have to pay taxes for those real state properties because it is necessary to share a bit of my wealth with others…

@Alkis Piskas interesting, if the OpenAI doesn't have the necessary amount of information it lacks of the ability to give arguments or data. Check out the question I raised a few moments ago

Me: How many chances of winning the Nobel prize of literature Yukio Mushima had?

OpenAI: Yukio Mishima was considered a contender for the Nobel Prize in Literature during his lifetime. However, the Nobel Prize is not publicly announced as a list of nominees or a ranking of potential winners, and the decision-making process of the Swedish Academy is confidential. It is not possible to determine how many chances Mishima had of winning the Nobel Prize, as the academy does not release information about its evaluations or discussions. Nevertheless, Mishima's contributions to Japanese literature and his international reputation as a writer have secured his place in literary history.

Hmmm... Interesting looks like that the AI suffers with the opaque information. :chin:

what is the ethical distinction when both are harm reducers and life enablers? How would this distinction block the concluded entailment? — fdrake

I think the ethical distinction between both practices lies in the extension of the free will of the donor. We can be agree with the fact that is more ethical when somone decides the destiny of his body afterwards.
But the law is not enacted to solve ethical issues but to reach equity. That's why I see it is fine if a judge needs to make a decision because we consider judges and courts as third parts who resolve problems of the societies and they interpret what should be someone's wishes if the interests of a person is at risk. We cannot take these premises so personally because (in my humble opinion) it would be a selfish act to opt out a donation when a someone needs it so urgently. Otherwise, interpreting our bodies as property it looks like a religious belief rather than ethical one...

Another example is on names and second names (I know it is off topic but I think is a good example): Each individual since is a kid has the right of having a name but imagine for a second that the kid is abused by their parents. I see acceptable if a judge removes his second name if it is necessary to protect the kid. It doesn't matter the consent of his parents if they are abusers...

Conclusion, it is possible to led judges to decide as third arbitrary parts for what could the best for the persons.

[quote]( 2 ) Opt out organ harvesting is ethical.

I think there's two ways to take this, the first is going down the path that you can harvest people's organs without seeing the bodies as property.[/quote]

After reading the well written arguments on this topic (interesting thread, @fdrake) I end up in the conclusion that Opt out harvesting is fully ethical because as premises 4 and 5 indicate:( 4 ) Opt out organ harvesting is ethical because it is more beneficial than harmful. (premise)
( 5 ) Generalising from 4, a procedure performed to a dead body is ethical if it is more beneficial than harmful. (same justification as line 2).
Then, we can conclude that we can "obviate" someone's consent if it would help others.

In the other hand, there is always been a deep debate on if we should consider our bodies as "our properties". Allow me to share with you an interesting jurisdictional opinion regarding to this topic by the Supreme Court (of Spain, my country)

1. Whenever a person dies, he/she loses her/his civil personality and then he/she lacks his/her own right to claim.[ * (Yet, an authority represented by their interests can take decision on order to complement someone's interests)

2. Public order must prevail over private. A judge must decide and authorize an organ donation if the health and life of others is at risk, even if the donor had not expressed his agreement or disagreement while alive.

Donald Trump is a shrewd person who arrived at the White House with the aim of limiting the justice processes against him. Whenever you reach such amount of power, you can control the Supreme Court as much as you wish. It is not about money but power.

I didn't end up staying in academia, but technically I am one. — Manuel

Right! Sorry for forgetting you... If I am not wrong you hold a PhD on philosophy at Comillas right? Well, I remember it because I attended to Nebrija which is in front of your university. :sweat:

I was wondering if any academic philosophers visit this forum — Shawn

@Pfhorrest is an academic philosopher. He writes interesting articles in his main page: The Codex Quaerentis.
I remember that a few years ago he posted some consistent and philosophical threads but I think he is off from TPF or he is just taking a break.

In the other hand, Guest Speakers was a good idea to ask academic philosophers to join TPF and answers some questions.

One of my haiku poems has been published in a book called: HAIKUS VI.
The editors were calling for haiku poems related to autumn. I named my poem "Aki no Hana" because it means in Japanese "flower of autumn"

Visitando la
Tumba de mis ancestros.
Flor de otoño.

If I translate it into English, it doesn't follow the rules of 5 + 7 + 5, but I do it anyway:

visiting the
grave of my ancestors.
Autumn flower. :flower:

@Hanover

I was wondering if there were an option I could just choose that would put the current position into the analysis board. — Hanover

You can use the tool "Set up position" (copy and paste your position) or save the game in your library and use the tool "Load from Library"

Do you mean this?: Chess Analysis Board

Going back to an earlier post, I mentioned that when one group goes on strike, the rest bitch about them. — Sir2u

This situation always happens. I guess is due to lack of collectively culture. We are living in a individualistic and selfish period where most of the citizens only care about their own problems and avoid to make groups or masses with the aim to change the circumstances.

February 2nd.

Please check your INBOX. — Alkis Piskas

I going to do it right now!

Here. I just asked OAI as question about the subhect that I am discussing in parallel to this, about information and the physical universe — Alkis Piskas

How interesting is, right? We can use the OAI just to check what the programme would answer to different philosophical enquiries about the threads of this forum. Imagine the AI as a member of TPF, it could be so interesting... taking part in threads or even being able to starting a thread itself about whatever the AI considers as "philosophical"

@Alkis Piskas THE AI IS CAPABLE TO WRITE POETRY, OH MY GOD

I just asked if the AI if it can write a haiku and it says:

Me: Can you write a haiku poem?

OpenAI: Yes, here's one:

In the still of night
Moon rises, casting its light
Peaceful and serene.

Oh jesus! This completely disturbed my mind for minutes!

One can find a lot of them just by browsing the contents of this forum! — Alkis Piskas

That's true! It is interesting to make different questions about philosophy to the AI. Yet, I am not confident enough to do so because it is more intelligent than me and probably it starts to answer with messages that I am not able to understand at all! :lol:

Emotions refer to the soul. And an AI bot does not and will never have one. At least the AI as we know it today. — Alkis Piskas

I wish the AI continues as we know it in nowadays. Otherwise, such programmes and chats would be able to replace us!
One of the things I don't like at all about this topic is the "program" of AI to make painting or "arts". To be honest, I am against such acts. Art can only be interpreted by someone who has a soul, thus the humans.

Well, they are not dilemmas for me! — Alkis Piskas

Imagine trying to do a PhD on philosophy with the OpenAI :lol:

Please hold on while I look it up ... OK, don't do that either! :grin: — Alkis Piskas

Well, give me a chance to at least debate with the AI about samurais and haiku poems :flower: :blush:

But how is it going over there with the none Spanish speaking immigrants? Are they adapting to Spanish life OR are they adapting Spain to their ways? There are "supposedly" places in England where shari laws take preference. If that is so, why did they want to leave their place of origin? — Sir2u

Those are good questions.

To make a good answer to your enquiries, I think I have to separate every none Spanish speaking immigrant in different groups. Chinese citizens are well integrated and they speak Spanish so fluently. Most of the kids of the Chinese who came to Spain more than 10 years ago, are now in school or even in university. So, there is not a big deal or a problem regarding Asian immigration.
In the other hand, immigrants from Africa or Muslim countries are a different scenario. They do not speak Spanish and they do not get involved in the society. A tough barrier is religion and due to this culture cliché they tend to live isolated from the rest... in "ghettos" or neighbourhoods separated from the Spaniards or other immigrants.