What you have described is not beyond my comprehension, thank you, but you could hardly have expected a different response given how you exemplified it. You contend that a sentence only allows for single usage and therefore equivalence of meaning is implausible, yet the specific comparisons you provided allow for multiple usage on account of the words chosen. It is the verb that categorises the usage of a phrase not the noun, and it is this that is the purpose of communication.
That said, in the context of your examples the word ‘march’ can actually be either so on that footing I have not erred in what I said. One may decide to march i.e. ‘walk steadily and rhythmically forward in step with others’ or they may be in a march i.e. ‘a procession of people organised as a protest or demonstration’. ‘Leading’ merely concerns assuming authority on the grounds of guidance or direction; therefore, used in conjunction with ‘march’ suggests a noun status. Someone leading a march may well be at the fore of a group of people (procession); by the same token they may be leading a team, in which case they would again be fronting said ‘group’. This parallels the similarity between the phrases ‘walking to the end of a city’ and ‘walking to the end of the street’, to return to the original refutation.
You still miss the point.
A sentence is created to communicate a specific point. The fact that words have multiple meanings is separate from the specific usage in a sentence. When someone writes down a sentence, they intend for the sentence to communicate a specific message. While a sentence may be interpreted in multiple ways, that does not mean the original intention was ambiguous. Like you said, God dictated the Bible through inspiration. This means God had a specific message he intended to communicate through every verse. You have been presenting multiple interpretations to suggest validity but that actually weakens the argument for dictation. You should be presenting a single interpretation as intended by God.
Which-as I suggested- will force universe fragments to travel faster than the speed of light, and therefore back in time.
Light travels in the medium of the universe. The universe can expand at any speed. We have not been able to measure anything outside of the universe to make a statement regarding the nature of the medium it travels along.
Rather than a cyclic nature of big bang, big crunch, because of the breach of the fourth dimension of time, the big bang and big crunch occur only once in universal time- yet occur infinitely in linear time as ones reference follows the universe.
No.
You are referencing anti-particles that travel back in time. When a pair of particle and anti-particle is created, the anti-particle does travel back in time and the particle travels forwards or vice-versa. They must go in opposite directions because it is a conservative action. This duality is still from a linear reference frame.
There is nothing to suggest that a duality results in an infinite reference frame.
What would suggest an infinite reference frame is your previous explanation of the universe without regard to duality. As long as the two particles annihilate one another at the initial point of creation, it will be a circular reference frame and therefore infinite. This means that it is cyclic. There is no "rather than a cyclic nature" for your explanation.
The reason that time-travel is necessary in this situation is in order to adhere to the second law of thermodynamics, in that disorder of the universe can only increase. In your theory, where the universe infinitely fluctuates, entropy is constantly being "reset"
Entropy does not have to reset. A universe can move towards heat death as it cycles. There could be some unknown form of entropy reversal for each Big Bang or Big Crunch.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/
However, in my theory, entropy is always succumbing to gravity, becoming less and less ordered until it is the universe particle- the most stable state in reference to gravity. In a linear model, this is the end of the system, because as soon as the Big Bang occurs, disorder is negative and time is negative, which still adheres to disorder increasing over time.
Gravity does not produce more entropy in the way you describe. It seeks to bring all matter into one place. Entropy is just heat death which is related to the transfer between energy and work in a system. While gravity can do work on a system, "entropy does not succumb to gravity".
1. Fucking does spread your genes, but it may not lead to procreation. The objective purpose of sex is pleasure, especially if it does not lead to procreation.
2. I know what he meant by "spread genes". The literal interpretation of "spread genes" is fucking, not procreation.
3. Yes. Even more purposes!
You: Good thing that Ive been talking about more than just a mistake. You mighte'ev had a good point.
Me: Being stupid leads to mistakes. This is the implied relationship.
This implies that my claim of mistakes being valuable experience relates to your original comment: ""Adults" are just older children who have more confidence with displaying how stupid they really are. So who's gonna control the children?"
I argued that if you want to convince others to act in a given way, you must invoke moral reasoning. This isn’t to say that people engage in moral reasoning before acting. Usually moral reasoning is done in retrospect in defense of ones actions, and usually only if those actions were a breach of conduct.
This is your current claim.
Instead of explaining all the numbers, I will just explain my interpretation of your claim.
The assumption is that all human actions require some sort of reason. That reason could come from instincts, reflexes, rationale, etc.
Other than your current claim, you have claimed that all human actions require a moral rationale/end/whatever. If we combine your current claim with your prior claim, they suggest that actions can be reason-less. They can be completed without any reasoning and only justified post-act. This seems impossible based on my given assumption of actions.
This is the contradiction I was referencing. Of course, there might not be any contradiction at all for various reasons. One reason would be if we cannot agree on my assumption of actions. You just need to provide your logic behind it.
The numbers help to combine your previous statements into one idea. They are ordered chronologically and help to show the evolution of our debate.
1) Reiterate/support previous claim. I was talking about creation of new economic systems. The wording may have led you to another interpretation, but it should have been obvious by context which "development" I was referring to.
2) Reiterate/support previous claim.
3) Reiterate/support previous claim.
3a) It seems like we have different interpretations of normative morality. There are different moral codes for normative morality as well. The variation in codes is not indicative or descriptive or normative.
Stanford: "“Morality”when used in a descriptive sense has an essential feature that “morality” in the normative sense does not have, namely, that it refers to codes of conduct that are actually put forward and accepted by some society, group, or individual. If one is not a member of that society or group, and is not that individual, accepting a descriptive definition of “morality” has no implications for how one should behave. If one accepts a moral theory's account of rational persons and the specifications of the conditions under which all rational persons would endorse a code of conduct as a moral code, then one accepts that moral theory's normative definition of “morality. ”"
"If one accepts a moral theory's account of rational persons and the specifications of the conditions under which all rational persons would endorse a code of conduct as a moral code, then one accepts that moral theory's normative definition of “morality. ” Accepting a normative definition of “morality” commits a person to regarding some behavior as immoral, perhaps even behavior that one is tempted to perform."
"In the normative sense, morality should never be overridden, that is, no one should ever violate a moral prohibition or requirement for non-moral considerations. All of those who use “morality” normatively also hold that, under plausible specified conditions, all rational persons would endorse that code. Moral theories differ in their accounts of the essential characteristics of rational persons and in their specifications of the conditions under which all rational persons would endorse a code of conduct as a moral code. These differences result in different kinds of moral theories."
Your previous claim is about all human behavior rather than a specific code of conduct accepted only by a group/individual. The specific code of conduct is part of descriptive morality.
You claims have been one of "rational" rather than "acceptance" which is also the difference between normative and descriptive morality. A descriptive morality requires no basis in nature. It is just accepted by a group or individual as the correct one. A natural code of conduct that applies to all humans is a normative one.
That’s right. When talking about morality as a human behavioral phenomenon, one must talk about it descriptively.
4) We seem to have interpreted the Stanford source differently. I am curious which sections of your own source you can cite to support your view that morality concerning all human behavior is descriptive.
Remember when I said “To convince people to go to war, one must make a moral argument”.? I’m not saying that going to war is necessarily normatively morally right.
Normative morality does not mean that an action must be right or wrong regardless of the code. It just means that an action which falls under the code of conduct is moral for all humans, not just some society that has accepted a specific code.
This is based on my interpretation of the Stanford definition.
Nothing about what I have said contradicts the above quote. When I say that one must make a moral argument in order to promote a given social or economic system, I mean you must convince people to conduct themselves in a given way, or at least justify why a particular way of conducting oneself is right. This is not in conflict with saying that most people do not reason morally before they act.
In order for the person to advocate something, they must have a reason. If the reason for an act is only known afterwards, how does the person advocate anything to begin with?
You describe the conduct as right/wrong which suggests morality. What about better/worse? A person has personal tastes for why something is better than something else. Why aren't there amoral ends? Instincts and reflexes justify behavior as well. There are also rational justifications that have nothing to do with morality. One person can buy a piece of clothing because it looks nice to him/her. Another person might think another piece of clothing looks nice and buys that instead. A third person buys a piece of clothing to replace another outfit. All these decisions are amoral. Two are based on subjective tastes, and one is based on the need for replacement.
Rationale can be moral and amoral. It makes no sense to claim that all rationale must be moral.
I’ve been talking about the nature of morality as such. This is inherently descriptive. I’m not saying that people should make moral arguments to justify socialism, I am saying that the nature of morality is such that it is impossible not to. While discussing what the article said about “all rational people” and my views, I did slip into normative references to morality. My bad.
The nature of morality is inherently normative. You are claiming a natural morality. Something "put forward and accepted" is not natural. It is synthesized by a specific group.
Read the Stanford definition again.
Having no moral considerations before or during an act does not remove the act itself from the realm of morality, nor does it eliminate one’s ability to reason about it morally after the fact. (Nobody considers the moral habits they have formed).
So the only acts that are not morally justified beforehand are those that are considered habitual. You should have qualified it as this from the beginning.
This just brings us back to how many types of justifications there are. You claim there is only moral justification while Cartman and I claim that other types exist.
To justify something is to prove that it is right or reasonable. There is no amoral way to prove that an act is right or reasonable.
I agree with this statement. We just have a different interpretation of "reasonable". "Right" concerns are moral concerns. "Reasonable" concerns are amoral concerns.
It is reasonable to eat when one is hungry. Hunger is the signal the body sends to the brain that it requires sustenance. It is reasonable to eat food that you prefer over food that you do not prefer given that both foods are available. It is reasonable to favor the theory of evolution over the theory of creation because the theory of evolution has more empirical value. It is reasonable to favor the theory of general relativity over the classical interpretation of gravity because it has been shown empirically to be more accurate.
These are all reasonable justifications that do not rely on morality.
There are things that I believe are right and others that are wrong. I haven’t discussed those things here. That would be an argument from a normative moral position.
Code of conducts in descriptive and normative morality both claim right/wrong. Descriptive morality limits the right/wrong to people within that society. Normative morality applies the right/wrong to all humans.
Either I have misunderstood the Stanford definition or you have.
Consider written codes of conduct, is there any act that is alegal?
For written codes of conduct, alegal conduct is just any conduct that falls outside of the scope of the code. If it is the dress code of a restaurant, then building regulations would be considered alegal relative to that specific code.
I’m saying that all human behavior is either adheres to a code of conduct or is in breach of a code of conduct, thus making all conduct moral in nature.
Earlier you claimed that there are behavior that fall outside of the scope. Now you claim that all behavior is within scope.
The earlier claim: " Any conduct is going to be either outside or inside the scope of a code of conduct. If it is not a breach of a code of conduct, it is not amoral, it’s moral."
Perhaps it is worded poorly or I have misinterpreted this. Out of scope means that it does not relate at all to the code. This is how I have interpreted it.
“A non-breach is only considered moral if the behavior could have led to a possible breach”..Explain?..The standards upon which moral codes are built make impossible an action that lacks context to the given standard.
Yes. This is your understand of morality. You believe that a code of conduct must address all types of behavior. If you refer to the Stanford source, it indicates that a code of conduct can just address some behavior, not all behavior. There is no definition of morality which claims that a moral code must address all types of behavior.
My example of Hobbes and Kant illustrate this point.
Only going by your examples of Kant and Hobbes given here; Hobbes sought to force moral action holding the natural alternative as immoral, while Kant wanted to prohibit the immoral while disbelieving in the moral. The arguments I have encountered here are rather like Kant’s in that actions are presented as immoral (breach of conduct), or amoral (no breach). But the standard upon which people determine the immoral, also determines the moral.
No. You have misinterpreted both because of confirmation bias. Kant's code of conduct notes the immoral nature of harming the self or others. It also notes that the opposite which is to not harm the self or others is moral (good). Any action that does not relate to the harming or not harming of the self or others is considered amoral.
Similar explanation for Hobbes and his Leviathan. His code of conduct believes that survival of the fittest leads to immorality while suppressing that biological basis leads to morality (goodness). All conduct that does not relate to survival would be considered amoral.
My position holds amorality to be reserved for things unrelated to conduct. This is not an alteration of the definition, it’s an explanation.
This should be "amorality to be reserved for things unrelated to the code of conduct." The purpose of qualifying conduct with a specific code is to differentiate between all conduct and a specific code. That was the definition provided by Stanford. Your personal code of conduct may include all conduct, but that does not mean that all codes of conduct include all conduct.
The problem with your reasoning is that no acting human lacks a code of conduct (because people have means to ends for reasons). Thus, recognizing the subjective nature of morality does not change the fact that an action is within or outside of one’s code. Consider the codified guide to conduct, law. Is there anything that is alegal?
First we need to define legal and illegal which would be moral and immoral for a moral code.
Legal is just an action permitted by law. Illegal is the opposite of that which is an action not permitted by law.
There are plenty of things that are alegal. Any action that is not addressed by law is considered alegal. Those actions are neither legal or illegal. Similarly, any action permitted by a moral code as right/moral is right. Any action that is not permitted is wrong. Any action that is not addressed by the moral code is amoral.
I believe your argument will be that laws are not all encompassing while moral codes of conduct are. My claim is that this view of all encompassing codes of conduct is irrational and unnatural. The examples given by Stanford of Kant and Hobbes are also partial code of conduct that only apply to specific behavior. It is only your own which applies to all behavior.
Let me just give you an example of legal, illegal, and alegal. Before the passing of anti-miscegenation laws in the US, miscegenation was alegal. After the passing of these laws, it became illegal. When SCOTUS ruled that these laws violated constitutional rights, it became legal.
I am too lazy to respond to the rest of your posts regarding this point. I believe our main point of disagreement lies in the explanation above. If you wish for me to address any specific part of your responses, just indicate as such.
Going to address semi-related comments below...
Rationality isn’t subjective. Your statement that we would probably arrive at the same conclusions given the same information implies that you believe this. This is why a person can believe in a normative morality, without believing that people adhere to it.
I already pointed out the part of rationality that is subjective. Rationality depends on personal assumptions. Assumptions depend on perspective which is subjective. If we all share the same assumptions and are given the same information, we will arrive at the same conclusions. Since we do not all share the same assumptions, and it would be impossible to completely replicate another person's perspective, Rationality is subjective.
Where have I altered the definition?
Refer to the above. You have either altered the definition or misinterpreted them. That is my claim. I have supported it with quotes from the Stanford definition as well as dictionary.com in another post.
You asked “How are instincts, biological reactions to stimuli, explained in moral terms?”. I gave an example of moral issues that are also instinctual, this was one way to answer your question. I went on to explain how causal biological phenomenon are moral issues to the extent that they are overcome by volition.
Regarding just the logic. Given the set of A is a subset of B, we cannot conclude that B is a subset of A without more information. Answering the question, "How is A a subset of B?" with "B is a subset of A" is not valid.
Regarding the actual explanation. Your claim of rape and crimes of passion are not instinctual. Like I said, emotions (passion) are separate from instinct.
Rape is also not instinctual, at least not for all organisms. Many organisms exhibit courtship rituals instinctively. This would suggest that consensual mating is instinctual for some organisms. Whether or not it is for humans is debatable.
This is by far your best argument for the notion that behavior can be amoral. I would argue that accidents are not a matter of volition or behavior. Water pressure building within someone until it blasts out of the nearest release point is no more volitional than a tree falling on one’s leg. To say that accidents are amoral is reasonable. To say that accidents constitute conduct or behavior is a stretch. Accidents are only considered conduct when they could be expected to be avoided, such as in instances of negligence, which is considered immoral
A person stubbing his toe is an action.
Q: How did he conduct himself? A: Accidentally. Q: Why should we be socialist. A: Accidentially?
A person performs an action based on some superstition about improving luck (blowing a dice before tossing it). His belief in the modification of luck was the reason for his actions. This would not be accidental. It would also be amoral.
A person advocates for socialism over capitalism because he believes it will lead to more prosperity. His belief in the economic system was the reason for his actions. This would not be accidental. It would also be amoral.
The ultimate goal of the living is life. Hence my personal moral beliefs. Hunger may be instinctual, but eating concerns morality. Same with pain. The pain is amoral, what one does about it and how they do it concerns morality.
Your claim is that it must concern morality. My claim is that eating can concern morality, but it can also be amoral. My example provides one type of eating that is generally amoral: eating food that you have gathered/paid/grown for yourself.
All behavior is moral in nature, that is to say it is moral or immoral.
This is the central issue. Refer to the earlier portion where I addressed this.
In fact, the whole reason we are arguing about economics below is because you said something about advocating for supply and demand models or something, which I took issue with because advocating for something that is actually amoral, like a mathematical model, amounts to proposing that it is factually correct and has nothing to do with human conduct the way Socialism does.
My claim is that economic systems can also be advocated for amorally. There is a mathematical aspect to economic systems because they are based on economic theories and models. There are also numerous economic studies that measure the effectiveness of specific factors based on specific implementations. We can advocate for one system over another based purely on empirical value. I believe we agree that empirical value is amoral.
Just because some people have advocated for economic systems from a moral stance does not mean that all advocacy must come from a moral stance.
By the way, there are many types of socialist systems. A person can advocate for one socialist system over another. If both systems hold the same moral value, how would one advocate for one over another? Perhaps through some amoral means? Most economies are a mix between capitalism and socialism as in a mix of state-control and private-control, which is related to why there are so many economic systems.
I hold normative moral discussions to be those concerning what is actually right or wrong (Which I will engage in, but I don’t think I have here). I hold descriptive moral discussions to be those concerning what/how/why morality is (the nature of morality as such).
Ok. I am pretty sure that you are using a different definition than the Stanford source. We should probably use the Stanford one for consistency.
"The term “morality” can be used either
1. descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
some other group, such as a religion, or
accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons."
The basic part. You should read the rest of your source. It actually counters quite a bit of your points. Also... why the hell did you not read your own source?
The moral issue is not the pain, it’s the cause of the pain.
The issue does not have to be the cause of the pain. It can also be the action in response to pain. If we behave in a certain way around pain (like avoid it), that is still a form of conduct. The fact that people avoid pain as typical behavior is an amoral one.
I’m saying my earlier comments do. If there is an incorrect earlier usage, it was a typo. Even so, you would need to find and quote my typo to justify your assertion
I did quote the parts. You just claimed my interpretation was different from the intended message. I don't see how "the concept of supply and demand" equates to "the phenomenon of supply and the phenomenon of demand" in your mind. This indicates some confusion on your part.
What makes a bundle of goods “supply” as opposed to a cache or store? The concept. There is a concept of “Table”. And when you take in the phenomenon through perception, and your understand it in thought, you conceptualize it. It is then a concept
It is not the concept that differentiates them but the definition of the words. We create words to describe phenomenon. Once we created a table, we gave it a name. When we wanted to talk about supply in a market, we created the word supply for the phenomenon apparent in the market.
"con·cept
ˈkänˌsept/Submit
noun
an abstract idea; a general notion."
"phe·nom·e·non
fəˈnäməˌnän,fəˈnäməˌnən/
noun
1.
a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one whose cause or explanation is in question."
This is clearly a mistake on your part. The cause or explanation of a phenomenon is a concept. The phenomenon itself exists. There is nothing abstract about the existence of an observed phenomenon.
I guess it was a semantics issue.
An painting can be promoted based on how accurately it represents its subject. The degree of accuracy is not a debate over the existence of the subject. A debate about how accurately reality is represented in mathematics and theory is not a debate about the existence of the reality being analyzed
It seems that the semantics issue was the difference between a concept and a phenomenon. Hopefully, you understand the difference now.
When you looked up that definition, what did it give as an example of an economic model? Was it a fucking paragraph?
It provided both. Below is the paragraph. You can find the curve yourself.
"The four basic laws of supply and demand are:[1]:37
If demand increases (demand curve shifts to the right) and supply remains unchanged, a shortage occurs, leading to a higher equilibrium price.
If demand decreases (demand curve shifts to the left) and supply remains unchanged, a surplus occurs, leading to a lower equilibrium price.
If demand remains unchanged and supply increases (supply curve shifts to the right), a surplus occurs, leading to a lower equilibrium price.
If demand remains unchanged and supply decreases (supply curve shifts to the left), a shortage occurs, leading to a higher equilibrium price."
That is usually how explanations usually go. They explain the same concept in multiple ways.
Read your Stanford source. I have no idea why you posted something that you did not even read. Or, you did read it misunderstood it completely. Or, I misunderstood it completely. I re-read a large portion of it just to be sure of my interpretation. You should do so as well.
I hold normative moral discussions to be those concerning what is actually right or wrong (Which I will engage in, but I don’t think I have here). I hold descriptive moral discussions to be those concerning what/how/why morality is (the nature of morality as such).
I in my above argument I defined my words with a quick google search as I am sure you confirmed. But a simple definitions will not sum up a complex topic.
You have confirmation bias. Both Cartman and I have pointed out that you have been using words incorrectly. Obviously, in your mind, it must be us that is wrong. Maybe you should consider the other option as well.
PS: I asked you to quote the specific parts of the sources that indicates "Justifying behavior must invoke moral reasoning." or "all human behavior must invoke moral ends".
You still have not done it. If you claim justification by the source, then you should be able to produce such justification.
More semantics...
behavior
1.
manner of behaving or acting.
2.
Psychology, Animal Behavior.
observable activity in a human or animal.
the aggregate of responses to internal and external stimuli.
a stereotyped, species-specific activity, as a courtship dance or startle reflex.
3.
Often, behaviors. a behavior pattern.
4.
the action or reaction of any material under given circumstances:
the behavior of tin under heat.
action
noun
1.
the process or state of acting or of being active:
The machine is not in action now.
2.
something done or performed; act; deed.
3.
an act that one consciously wills and that may be characterized by physical or mental activity:
a crisis that demands action instead of debate; hoping for constructive action by the landlord.
4.
actions, habitual or usual acts; conduct:
He is responsible for his actions.
5.
energetic activity:
a man of action.
6.
an exertion of power or force:
the action of wind upon a ship's sails.
7.
effect or influence:
Behavior is composed of actions, it doesn't determine it.
Behavior (2) is instinct, probably not what you want. (4) is non-human.
Action (3) or (4) is probably what you want. (3) is a pattern of behaviors which relates to "Behavior is composed of actions". (4) has the word conduct so that seems even better for you, since it is also composed of multiple actions. (5), (6), and (7) seem irrelevant. (1), (2), and (3) can also fit.
My previous explanation was using the (1) of both. The first definition is the most common usage. I guess if you want to go with behavior (1) and action (4), that is fine as well. It does not mean my interpretation earlier was incorrect.
"Behavior determines action. Action can result from behavior or be independent of it. This means that there are other types of actions not determined by behavior."
The manner of action determines the act. The action itself is just an act.
Justifying behavior must invoke moral reasoning.
Assuming you are using behavior (4), we should define conduct.
1.
personal behavior; way of acting; bearing or deportment.
2.
direction or management; execution:
the conduct of a business.
3.
the act of conducting; guidance; escort:
The curator's conduct through the museum was informative.
4.
Obsolete. a guide; an escort.
Conduct (2), (3), and (4) appear irrelevant. I guess we are going with (1).
"personal behavior; way of acting; bearing or deportment."
Bearing and deportment both regard a specific type/manner of acting.
Way of acting suggests manner of acting as well.
Nothing so far has even hinted at the intrinsic morality of action, behavior, or conduct.
Since everything seems to relate to "manner", let us look that up too.
manner
1.
a way of doing, being done, or happening; mode of action, occurrence, etc.:
I don't like the manner in which he complained.
2.
manners.
the prevailing customs, ways of living, and habits of a people, class, period, etc.; mores:
The novels of Jane Austen are concerned with the manners of her time.
ways of behaving with reference to polite standards; social comportment:
That child has good manners.
3.
a person's outward bearing; way of speaking to and treating others:
She has a charming manner.
4.
characteristic or customary way of doing, making, saying, etc.:
houses built in the 19th-century manner.
5.
air of distinction:
That old gentleman had quite a manner.
6.
(used with a singular or plural verb) kind; sort:
What manner of man is he? All manner of things were happening.
7.
characteristic style in art, literature, or the like:
verses in the manner of Spenser.
Manner (3) is just conduct (1). (4) through (7) appear irrelevant. (1) is similar to "way of acting" or "manner of acting".
(2) regards politeness or prevailing customs. Politeness obviously does not encompass all types of behavior as certain types of behavior cannot be polite or impolite. Prevailing customs fits well with the definition of descriptive morality presented by the Stanford source. However, as I already pointed out from the Stanford definition, descriptive morality does not always dictate behavior.
"If one is not a member of that society or group, and is not that individual, accepting a descriptive definition of “morality” has no implications for how one should behave."
Basically, there is nothing in the definitions that support "Justifying behavior must invoke moral reasoning."
You can keep claiming that google and Stanford support your ideas, but you need to back it up by quoting from the sources instead of just making up your own definitions.
Forgot to define justification for you.
justification
1.
a reason, fact, circumstance, or explanation that justifies or defends:
His insulting you was ample justification for you to leave the party.
2.
an act of justifying :
The painter's justification of his failure to finish on time didn't impress me.
3.
the state of being justified.
4.
Also called justification by faith. Theology. the act of God whereby humankind is made or accounted just, or free from guilt or penalty of sin.
5.
Printing. the spacing of words and letters within a line of type so that all full lines in a column have even margins both on the left and on the right.
(2) through (5) are irrelevant. "a reason, fact, circumstance, or explanation that justifies or defends" still has nothing to do with morality.
From your link: "In short, behavior defines how an individual will act, whereas an act is anything an individual does and how they do it, independent of their typical behavior"..and all without an explanation of how an act is independent of behavior. Great source.
It was not that clear, but beats me writing out a paragraph only for you to ignore it and keep defending your personal definitions.
I guess I can help you clear it up a bit.
Behavior determines action. Action can result from behavior or be independent of it. This means that there are other types of actions not determined by behavior.
You can keep claiming that act = behavior = conduct, it won't change the dictionary.
I drew my definitions from google and Stanford.
Really? Can you quote the part of google/stanford which claims that all human behavior must invoke moral ends?
His question concerned what direction Christianity would lead. Even if the pope isn't referring to a proper definition of socialism, it is still more in line with socialism than capitalism. Many would argue that the pope isn't a proper christian, but it still fits my position.
How is state-controlled production more in line with Christianity than private ownership? How do either line up with a religion that talks about worshiping an omniscient being and his hippie son?
By the way, most social democracies in Europe are mixed economies that skew heavily towards Capitalism.
Spreading genes is not the same as continuing life. Most (All) human children cannot survive without adult care. A human family unit propagates human life. Random fucking does nothing other than raise abortion and single-mother rates.
1. That was trying to guess at where you might go next.
Based on my experience, social skills (networking ability) is far more advantageous than a solid academic background.
I interpret academic skills as the ability to excel in an academic setting, not the general ability to learn and absorb information. If we are talking about the general ability, then it would definitely be more important. Without it, you would not be able to tie your shoes.
Neither. Many contracts include a clause that destroys the embryos upon divorce.
If there is no such clause then one of the plaintiffs must show some exceptional reason. If the court/arbitrator/whatever deems it exceptional, that plaintiff will receive the embryos.
For example, if the man or woman freezes the embryos in preparation for a medical procedure that will cause infertility, then they will usually gain ownership.
noun
1.
the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2.
the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute:
the God of Islam.
3.
(lowercase) one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
4.
(often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception:
the god of mercy.
5.
Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.
6.
(lowercase) an image of a deity; an idol.
7.
(lowercase) any deified person or object.
8.
(often lowercase) Gods, Theater.
the upper balcony in a theater.
the spectators in this part of the balcony.
For definitions of God.
1. Maybe
2. Depends on attribute
4. Depends on conception
5. Probably not.
8. Yes
Looks like the only version of God to definitely exist is "Gods, Theater.
the upper balcony in a theater.
the spectators in this part of the balcony."
It would be even more difficult to predict recidivism.
I am claiming that there is less variables involved with gene expression than with predicting how a person behaves.
Experience in law enforcement means nothing if we are talking about predictions. While crimes are similar, criminals are unique. Prediction of recidivism may seem obvious in some cases, but it would take at least a preponderance of proof to indict someone for a future crime.
For gene expression, we can perform unethical experiments to determine cause and effect as opposed to correlation.
For preventative measures like gene modification, I think that is ethically similar to behavior modification in a criminal. Ethics will definitely get blurred as we come up with new techniques.
Since we are rational beings, we can choose to not procreate. We are no longer bound by evolutionary pressure.
The claim that "the purpose of life is to live" is circular. By adding any purpose other than "to live" would resolve the circular nature of the argument.
Since this was a communication between two individuals, you would have show that your transmission was clear in order to infer that I misinterpreted it.
I already pointed out the different between "point" and "summation". Your ball.
http://english.stackexchange.com/
Easier to let someone else explain it to you.
You have your own definitions for morality, conduct, behavior, act, and probably more. It seems like you are twisting words to try and maintain the logic in your claim.
but what would Christianity more likely lead you to?
Ask the Pope.
The Pope is referring to "socialism" in Europe which is social democracy. Means of production are still privately controlled. The "socialism" that he refers to is the welfare state.
This does not really make sense considering all the other statements you have made regarding the fundamental nature of moral reasoning in regards to human behavior
I argued that if you want to convince others to act in a given way, you must invoke moral reasoning. This isn’t to say that people engage in moral reasoning before acting. Usually moral reasoning is done in retrospect in defense of ones actions, and usually only if those actions were a breach of conduct.
You made several statements in support of your original claim which contradict your current claim.
1) Your earlier claim was that all support and development for some economic system must invoke moral reasoning.
To promote one system over another, or to develope a new one, one must invoke moral reasoning.
2) You claimed that social issues are related to human behavior which makes them moral issues.
social: of or relating to society or its organization..
moral: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character
It's nice that you can look up a definition, though it doesn't constitute an argument, nor refute my position. Since behavior relates to society, moral issues are social issues. Prac Ap.
3) You continue to expand on the relationship between morality and all human behavior.
Pain is an amoral phenomenon. Intentionally causing it has moral implications. Accidentally causing it has different moral implications.
Since most arguments will lead to the preservation of life, it seems we should focus on this issue.
Why do you believe that preservation of life must be a moral one? Why must it belie instinct? Does a newborn consider its only preservation before crying out of hunger?
All arguments would reduce to the preservation or enhancement of life, yes. It’s not the case that it must belie instinct. A persons actions, driven by instinct can still be explained in moral terms.
3a) This all sounds like normative morality, but...
4) Then you claim that you have been talking about morality in the descriptive sense and not the normative one. Descriptive moralities are not universal, but limited to a specific group/society, at least according to your own source for the definition of morality.
Not in the slightest. I never said everyone was the same. I have been talking about morality in descriptive terms. Moral arguments in this sense are not necessarily morally good in the normative sense.
"“Morality”when used in a descriptive sense has an essential feature that “morality” in the normative sense does not have, namely, that it refers to codes of conduct that are actually put forward and accepted by some society, group, or individual. If one is not a member of that society or group, and is not that individual, accepting a descriptive definition of “morality” has no implications for how one should behave. If one accepts a moral theory's account of rational persons and the specifications of the conditions under which all rational persons would endorse a code of conduct as a moral code, then one accepts that moral theory's normative definition of “morality. ” Accepting a normative definition of “morality” commits a person to regarding some behavior as immoral, perhaps even behavior that one is tempted to perform. Because accepting a normative definition of “morality” involves this commitment it is not surprising that philosophers seriously disagree about what normative definition to accept."
4a) Descriptive morality refers to a subjective code of conduct. Normative morality refers to a universal code of conduct that defines specific behavior as moral or immoral. Are you sure you have been talking about morality in descriptive terms?
5) Now you claim that moral justifications made after an act accurately reflect actual reasoning before/during the act. What about amoral justifications post-act?
Your arguments so far have made no sense in several regards. Why must all people invoke moral reasoning for any type of behavior? I still think you have been talking about normative morality this whole time, yet you claim otherwise. While most "philosophers seriously disagree about what normative definition to accept", you seem to think that your specific moral views (universal moral ends) are shared by all rational people.
A rational person can choose a course of action that another rational person would not. This course would not adhere to the theory of normative morality. In order for it to adhere to normative reality, all rational people would be expected to endorse a given course. This is more a statement about the nature of rationality than it is about people.
Yes. This is all true. You should also note that there are varying "codes of conduct" attributed as morally normative. If we go by the Stanford source, this means that your claim of all human behavior belonging to this "code of conduct" is not shared by all normative morality claims.
Non-moral considerations are not irrational, they just aren’t concerned with codes of conduct, or morality (by definition). Any conduct is going to be either outside or inside the scope of a code of conduct. If it is not a breach of a code of conduct, it is not amoral, it’s moral.
First of all, your explanation needs to be adjusted because you have the wrong definition. I think your personal belief in the right answer has skewed the interpretation of morality in your mind. A code of conduct, by definition, considers all within scope to be of a moral issue and all without amoral. A non-breach is only considered moral if the behavior could have led to a possible breach. If the behavior has nothing to do with the particular code of conduct (outside of scope), then it is amoral.
Ignoring the weird definition in your statement, we can consider the following information from your source.
If you are talking about descriptive morality, then: "If one is not a member of that society or group, and is not that individual, accepting a descriptive definition of “morality” has no implications for how one should behave."
If a person is not a part of the group, then a breach of conduct and a non-breach are both amoral because descriptive morality is basically subjective morality.
If you are talking about normative morality, then that depends entirely on the code of conduct. Many philosophers have proposed many different codes of conduct. Your proposed code seems to include all human behavior. If you want to advocate for your specific claim, then that is fine. So far, you seem to be suggesting that your claim is the standard definition of morality, which is different from supporting a specific normative theory.
If you go by Hobbes, then we would be talking about a code of conduct revolving around a strong central government that has absolute power in order to avoid the state of nature (survival of the strongest).
If we go by Kant, then the code only prohibits harm. All other forms of behavior are considered of an amoral nature.
Both of these men advocated for the correctness of their normative theories, but neither have altered the definition of "code of conduct" to include in-scope and out-scope behavior.
It is true that not all rationale is actually shared by all rational people. This is because people cannot all have equal information. The normative definition is meant to show that, given specific conditions, rationality would demand a given course of action. If rationality demands it, then all rational people who are aware of all the conditions would endorse it. But rational people are not aware of all conditions (this makes them fallible, not irrational). This accounts for the differences in normative theories.
It seems that we agree that people cannot be aware of all conditions. We disagree on the reasons for the differences in normative theories. Many of these theories provide the specific conditions under which they are true. Even with normalized information, rational people have still not agreed on a specific normative morality. Much of the debate is over the validity of the conditions themselves. Rationality is subjective in that it is based on perspective which is subjective. If we all shared the same perspective and the same information, then we will probably arrive at the same conclusions.
You can try and support the specific conditions of your claim and your perspective, but that does not mean it is the definition of morality.
Rape or other crimes of passion can be explained in instinctual terms (I know that’s an inverted answer to the question).
I asked you to explain why A explains B, and you give me why B explains A. If you know it is inverted, why even bring it up?
Also, crimes of passion are different from instinct. Instinct is biological. It has nothing to do with emotion. When you sense danger and the fight or flight response kicks in, that is instinct. Your parasympathetic activates and sets off a cascade of chemical responses. A person defending themselves from a crime of passion could act on instinct. Since we consider ourselves rational beings, we should also be able to overcome those instincts (no fight or flight). If we use moral reasoning to stop our instincts, that does not mean instincts do not exist.
Instincts are explained in moral terms only when a person can be expected to alter the course their instincts or biology have set. Thus, if a person pisses their pants on a bus because they could not possibly hold it any longer, they have not chosen, nor could they stop, this action and it is not a moral concern. If someone realizes they have to piss and decides to go right there on the bus, it was biologically driven, but they could have controlled it and this gives it the act a moral consideration.
You have just stated the moral and amoral aspects of behavior. This directly contradicts your claim that all human behavior is moral.
Most arguments rely on preservation/enhancement of life at the root of their morality. This is why the capacity for moral reasoning evolved in people. Instincts become an insufficient guide to life when the brain is large enough to consider many forms of stimuli, including concepts, and choose between alternatives. Instincts aren’t amoral, they’re pre-moral. The extent to when they can be controlled as necessary is the moral concern.
How is amoral different from pre-moral? Amoral just means not moral. Anything before, after, above, below, outside, etc. of morality is amoral. This is how prepositions are used.
Instincts are still sufficient in the basic functions of life. Rationality is only required for complex situations. If you are hungry, you eat. That is the end you have been talking about. It is completely amoral. How you go about getting that food, the means, could be a moral or amoral issue. If you have access to your own stash of food, there is not much morality concerned with eating something that is yours. If you do not have your own food, then that tends to lead to a moral debate. All of these are a means to an end. Are we still talking about ends or means?
You still have not explained why all behavior is moral and why all social issues must invoke moral reasoning.
PS: I think you are talking the morality of ends in regards to the socialism debate. If not, feel free to clarify.
Of course I believe rationality results in my morality, if I didn’t believe that I would change my mind to fit what is rational. For the record, I haven’t argued about my specific code, I have only argued about the nature of morality as such.
Normative morality means that a person believes there is actually a right answer to moral questions and that rationality can help us know it. I know that rational people can disagree with me, we don’t have equal knowledge or experience. This doesn’t mean that I have the right answer or that the other person does. It just means I believe there is a right answer.
We need to review your argument so far.
I have no idea what your actual argument is anymore. Refer to the numbered sections 1 through 5.
There seem to be some contradictions in your arguments.
From this statement, it still sounds like you are supporting a normative morality, but you claimed you have been talking about a descriptive one.
You have a weird definition for code of conduct that is not even shared by your own source.
The nature of morality that you have defined is not the same that has been described on Wikipedia or the Stanford Encylopedia. Where does it say that even behaviors out of the scope of the code are considered moral?
Pain is not bad in and of itself. Breaking your toe is bad and pain helps you to know this. There are moral and amoral reasons one could feel pain. The moral issue is not the pain, it’s the cause of the pain. There can be natural causes of pain that are amoral, such as a tornado dropping a tree on your leg. The pain is not bad, the broken leg is bad. Neither are concerned with morality because neither are concerned with conduct or actions within the realm of control.
So, how does the behavior of stubbing your toe have moral implications? You still have not answered this. You pointed out some moral scenarios and amoral non-behavior scenarios. I am talking about an amoral human interaction.
That’s incorrect. Calling me egocentric is simple ad hominem.
Considering you believe your personal interpretation of "the nature of morality" is true regardless of what the Stanford Encyclopedia or Wikipedia indicates, egocentric is an adequate description.
Talking about the code of conduct scope which relates directly to your claim that all human behavior is moral.
I think I have answered most of this earlier in the post. Satisfying ones hunger is moral in that it is conduct that is in keeping with moral codes and the purpose thereof. It is not a breach of conduct. If you add context that shows satisfying ones hunger through means that is in breach of a code of conduct, the moral value of the activity changes.
This is all based on your definition of "code of conduct". A code of conduct refers to a code of morals. How is something that is not within the scope of the code considered part of the code (since you qualify out of scope issues as moral)?
I’m not confused. If you look back, you will see that I that I distinguish the supply and demand model from the phenomenon of supply and demand. We have a concept of supply which represents the phenomenon, I was referring to the concept of supply and of demand in the above. The concepts are real though the theory of their interaction can be incorrect. The phenomenon are real though the theoretical model, representing the theory of their interaction, can be incorrect. Please don’t restate this when you tell me I’m wrong.
This is the correct interpretation. I am just saying your earlier comments do not reflect this interpretation.
On that note, I understand that theories can be flawed or incorrect. That doesn’t mean that they we don’t use them to explain things. Think of what people sound like when they focus on the fact that a theory can be wrong. “The theory of evolution is just a theory”. I will continue to talk about the theory of supply and demand, the supply and demand model, and how they explain the phenomenon of supply and of demand using the concepts of supply and of demand. The qualifying word (theory, model, phenomenon, and concept) is meant to let you know if I am talking about supply and/or in the world, on a graph or in one’s head. From now on I will also put “of” in front of each so you know I am not holding them together as a singular concept, or phenomenon.
You cannot even admit that you misused the words concept, theory, model, and phenomenon. I am still of the belief that this was a conceptual issue and not a semantics issue on your part.
This is the concept of “supply and demand”. This is not the concept of supply and demand. Does it help if I say “The concept of supply and of demand”?
There is no concept of supply or concept of demand. They are phenomenon. They exist like the rain. The process by which it rains or the process by which supply affects the economy are concepts.
Is this still a semantics issue?
To say the model actually represents the phenomenon involved would be to advocate for the legitimacy of the model. It is to say you believe the theory is true (even while recognizing it as a theory). This is distinct from the actual phenomenon involved. No one would say “markets should have supply as well as demand”.
Let's analyze your statement from earlier. "The only way to advocate for supply and demand would be to say that the model accurately represents the actual phenomenon, not to say that markets should have supply and demand."
1) "The only way to advocate for supply and demand would be to say that the model accurately represents the actual phenomenon"
You use the word model when regarding supply and demand so you must be referring to the "supply and demand" model.
2) "the model accurately represents the actual phenomenon, not to say that markets should have supply and demand."
3) "This is distinct from the actual phenomenon involved. No one would say “markets should have supply as well as demand”."
The model of "supply and demand" does not represent the phenomenon of "supply" and "demand" at all. There is no accuracy to contest because the existence of "supply" and "demand" are factual.
Either you misused words again or you do not understand basic economics.
They do differ. One is a mathematical representation and the other is a language representation.
How do they differ in the context of your previous statements?
You claimed that Adam Smith did not use the model of "supply and demand" even though you accept that he used the concept of "supply and demand".
The definition of a economic model includes: "The economic model is a simplified framework designed to illustrate complex processes, often but not always using mathematical techniques."
A model explains the concept. There is no actual difference if Smith used a graph or a paragraph as long as both referred to the same concept.
GPA is heavily weighted in terms of admission. It is still the most important factor by far. Standardized tests cannot compare, at least not in the US. This is true for SAT/ACT, GRE, MSAT, LSAT, etc.
The girl speaks of the full package but wants to remove test-taking ability from that package. The point of the GPA, the personal statements, the tests, the extra-curriculars, and more are to provide a complete picture of a student.
To be frank, it sounds like the girl is just not good enough. Not everyone is meant to get into Harvard (or any college for that matter). Complaining that something is too hard means that she has not tried hard enough or she is just not capable enough.
Sometimes, it is just fate. You get no opportunities for some reason or other, so you just have to try that much harder to make up the gap.
Vaccines are more dangerous than Poisonous Snakes, Sharks, Lightning and Monkeys combined.
If all you care about is your life which is probably the most rational view, then the question can be reduced down to "what created my life?". Since perception is subjective, I do not think that there is an absolute perspective regarding life, so there is no reason to limit the objective purpose to one rationale.
A form of love? Not all sex can be declared in the name of love.
Well, we were talking about consensual sex earlier. I figured that would be extended to my previous comment as well.
I am not familiar with the Bible, but I do not recall anything about sex with God = defile.
I am not claiming that people actually engage in moral reasoning before they take any given action. People usually don’t.
This does not really make sense considering all the other statements you have made regarding the fundamental nature of moral reasoning in regards to human behavior.
Read again. What it said was rational people need not claim that other societies are rational. It goes on to explain that even rational societies with enough features to qualify as having normative morality may be flawed, and thus would not be endorsed by rational people in their entirety. It’s saying that a departure from normative morality is a departure from rationality. We need not expect that all people are rational.
Actually, it does not claim that people are irrational for not following some universal form of conduct. It does note the lack of endorsement by all rational people of various features of society.
From what I can tell, you are claiming that all rational people use morality as the sole form of reasoning in regards to human behavior. Since human behavior relates to society, all social systems are based on moral reasons.
"In the normative sense, morality should never be overridden, that is, no one should ever violate a moral prohibition or requirement for non-moral considerations."
Your source does not claim that non-moral considerations are irrational. They just claim that the "right" thing to do is always the moral one.
In fact, the many variations of normative theories indicates that not all rationale are shared by all rational people.
"All of those who use “morality” normatively also hold that, under plausible specified conditions, all rational persons would endorse that code. Moral theories differ in their accounts of the essential characteristics of rational persons and in their specifications of the conditions under which all rational persons would endorse a code of conduct as a moral code. These differences result in different kinds of moral theories. Related to these differences, moral theories differ with regard to those to whom morality applies, that is, those whose behavior is subject to moral judgment. Some hold that morality applies only to those rational beings that have those features of human beings that make it rational for all of them to endorse morality, viz., fallibility and vulnerability. Other moral theories claim to put forward an account of morality that provides a guide to all rational beings, even if these beings do not have these human characteristics, e.g., God."
All arguments would reduce to the preservation or enhancement of life, yes. It’s not the case that it must belie instinct. A persons actions, driven by instinct can still be explained in moral terms.
How are instincts, biological reactions to stimuli, explained in moral terms? The only way for that to be logical is if you ascribe to a divine morality which created human instincts.
Most arguments to provide moral justification relies on the preservation or enhancement of life. This is what morality is supposed to be about (though I don’t believe that everyone is rational). An argument that socialism should be adopted because it would lead to prosperity, is an argument based on the preservation or enhancement of life. This makes it a moral argument. Some moral arguments are concerned with the afterlife, but as Cartman will tell you, this still amounts to an argument for well-being (which is similar enough).
You still have not explained why preservation of life must be moral and why biological instincts are somehow not amoral.
Not in the slightest. I never said everyone was the same. I have been talking about morality in descriptive terms. Moral arguments in this sense are not necessarily morally good in the normative sense.
Normative morality just means a person believes in a universal code of conduct, not that they believe their universal code is the only rational one. Since you claim that people who do not subscribe to your specific code (all human behavior has a moral basis) are irrational, that would suggest that you believe all rationality must result in your morality.
I’m not confused, you restated what I said. Adam Smith used the concept of supply and the concept of demand to explain price determination. They are the same concepts that are used in Marshall’s Supply and Demand model. But using concepts to explain something is not the same as building an economic model
You must be thinking of those markets where there’s nothing for sale but nobody wanted anything anyway…If that’s the market you mean, I guess I am confused.
This line is why you are confused. The concept of supply and demand is not a truth. It is a theory. The Marshallian model combines the various theories regarding the relationship between S and D into what Marshall believes to be an accurate representation.
The concept of supply, and the concept of demand are how we understand the existing phenomenon. The model of supply and demand explains another existing phenomenon, price. You may be hung up on my use of the word “explain” but theories are what we use to explain things. I didn’t think I needed to cover that, but since you drone on for a while about my talking about theories in absolute terms, I guess I’ll clarify.
You missed the point entirely.
The theorized part is the relationship between three existing phenomenon. This relationship may or may not exist. The concept of S and D or Marshall's model which is just another way to describe the same concept are not existing phenomenon. They just explain a supposed relationship between S, D, and P.
I know that the supply and demand model used to illustrate the theory of prices is itself, theoretical. Wow.
The theorized part is not the price but how price is determined by supply and demand. This is the concept of "supply and demand". Price is a phenomenon and not a theory.
This might clear up some of your confusion with my explanations. When I say the phenomenon of supply and demand I am talking about them in terms of the phenomenon of each that we observe. When I say the model of supply and demand (perhaps I should have put them in quotes here), I am talking about the actual model that explains the theory of prices. If I ever said the theory of supply and demand (also belonging in quotes), I would have been talking about the theory (such as smith’s) which was lacking what the model presented, a visual framework.
If you re-read what I wrote, and refrain from putting your own quotes around my words in your mind, you will see that what I said make perfect sense. “Phenomenon” is what I use to distinguish the existing from the theoretical.
Let me just quote what you wrote to show why it seems like you believe the concept of supply and demand is an actual phenomenon.
"The only way to advocate for supply and demand would be to say that the model accurately represents the actual phenomenon, not to say that markets should have supply and demand."
Me: "The concept of supply and demand does not have to be true in an actual market"
You: "You must be thinking of those markets where there’s nothing for sale but nobody wanted anything anyway…If that’s the market you mean, I guess I am confused."
By refuting my claim that the theory of supply and demand may not exist suggests that you believe it exists absolutely, i.e. a phenomenon.
Pain is not bad. If you were born with some defect and didn’t feel pain, you wouldn’t live well. Pain is a warning of bad things (which can limit your life). If someone is inflicting pain on you, the moral implications come with how this impacts your quality of life.
And... why is pain not bad if our body tells us it is bad?
You keep talking about someone else inflicting pain even though I have been referring to natural causes of pain that are amoral.
This is my perspective based on my rationale. I don’t believe my perspective is the only possible one (here we are), but I do believe it is right. Calling me egocentric is not an argument.
Your argument thus far differs from this claim.
Calling you egocentric is just pointing out the lapse in your rationale.
Adam Smith used the concept of supply and the concept of demand to explain price determination. They are the same concepts that are used in Marshall’s Supply and Demand model. But using concepts to explain something is not the same as building an economic model
Adam Smith used the concepts of supply and demand in describing the workings of capitalism with regards to price determination. This is not the same as a supply and demand model which has an X and Y axis.
You are still claiming that a mathematical representation of a concept is somehow different from a language representation of it.
I guess claiming that A increases as B increases must be different from a graph showing a positive slope for B to A.
You also have not responded to several parts in my comments about natural behavior being amoral like satisfying hunger, quenching thirst, and avoiding pain.
Also the link between value, values, and morals does not seem to exist.
Maybe it's because the state taking the wealth of production and sharing it with the people is similar to a kind of ownership of production by the state or the people (maybe a stretch). Maybe it's because people who identify as socialists no longer promote total communism, but do support expanded welfare policies.
Shared production means shared responsibility for production. A welfare state means one group bears the responsibility for another. Completely different.
I think it is just people bandwagoning with misnomers. Like how most people think of peanuts as nuts...
The immediate need for actionable intelligence was the proximate cause.
I actually explained this earlier. Terror (fear) makes people give up their values.
I know a lot of things are declassified all the time, but the actual means by which we successfully collect intelligence is released more rarely.
Actually... pretty much everything becomes declassified after some period of time, by EO. The longest held secrets are only 75 years old if there is some super special reason to keep it a secret.
Catching criminals is only the police part of law enforcement, not the primary responsibility. What about the prosecutors, judges, trials, and prisons?
The primary responsibility is probably enforcing the laws of society, hence the name. I am asking what should be the purpose of those laws?
What is this justice that you speak of administering?
God's plan involves taking his children to Heaven to dwell in Heaven forever. Sexual relation with God is something that completely defiles his nature. God's nature doesn't change as he is most pure.
What is wrong with sexual relations?
The Bible allows for sexual relations between man and woman. Man was created in the image of God, wouldn't sexual relations be a good way for a woman to become intimate with God?
Basically an ACLU for small businesses.
These types of foundations already exist. From what I can tell, some of these foundations are backed by larger businesses who wish to remove certain legislation by portraying them as discriminatory against small businesses.
Similarly, there are minority group foundations that also have non-altruistic agendas.
At least people are consistent.
The description does not clarify the question.
I am interpreting "Is there such a thing as unconditional love?" as "Does unconditional love exist?"
It would depend on how you define unconditional love.
If we go with the literal meaning of unconditional, then probably not. Love without conditions seems like an unrealistic notion.
Based on my understanding of unconditional love, it refers to platonic love between parent and child. This is technically a conditional love, the condition being the parent to child relationship. This exists in this world even if it is not present in every parent/child relationship.
I think I know where you are going, but that is more like an argument from authority fallacy than being stupid.
I doubt anyone can completely avoid making logical fallacies all the time.
PS: A lot of logical fallacies are misused/misinterpreted. Accusing someone else of a logical fallacy probably means you are making one yourself.
The significance of an event is not lessened simply because the location is nameless. Mountains feature throughout the Bible; some of them already had names, others did not. For instance, The Mount of Olives afforded its name by virtue of its olive groves so it was already an established landmark before Jesus came. This was the location from which He ascended into heaven. On the other hand, Matthew 17 recounts another significant event: the transfiguration of Jesus on a high mount - this time there is no name given for the featured mountain. The distinction exists less in the name and more in the activity conducted there; that said, the documented magnitude in height of the mountain the devil used was most likely noted for reasons I mentioned earlier.
You missed the point entirely. I was referring to your claim that this high mountain was so special that the Devil brought Jesus to it in order intensify the vision. He had been on several mountains, how would being on another mountain suddenly be so different?
This is a semantic argument.
Since we cannot agree on the usages indicated in English, there seems to be no point to continue further.
Even for something basic such as -
A city, town, or world does not have a lengthwise extremity that is longer than it is wide or broad.
Length: the linear extent or measurement of something from end to end.
So not only are spheres not subject to measurement, these three are not either; nor may they afford the usage of its units (i.e. miles, metres/yards). Guess the scope of Rome can never be determined as it has no extremity. Nor may we ever know the distance from town to town due to their lack of length in proportion to their breadth. Got it.
Lengthwise: in a direction parallel with a thing's length.
"halve the potatoes lengthwise"
A city and town do have a lengthwise direction unless if it they happen to be squares. A square is usually not the case for a city or town. A spherical Earth would not have a lengthwise direction.
Those two "end" refer to different definitions. They are not the same principally. It would be like saying "leading a march" and "leading a team" are the same principally. They share the same word, but have different usages based on different definitions.
Not necessarily. A march can refer to a group of people the same way a team can, for instance: if someone was leading a march in protest they would typically be leading a group of however many people. If someone was leading a team again that would be a group of however many.
These two phrases have different meanings. They are not the same. A word can have multiple usages, but a sentence/phrase only allows for one usage (except for intentional multiple entendres). This is the purpose of communication. If you cannot understand that, then you need to go take a language class.
I think if he can win the primaries, he can win the general as well.
Voter turnout depends on how much they like Trump and how much they hate Hilary as well.
Then again, I do not think he will actually win the primaries. I was just trolling Cartman.
I believe he is referring to the predominant form of socialism in Europe, social democracy.
If we actually look at these types of "socialist" countries, their economies are capitalistic ones. Majority of the industries are still privately owned.
I don't know... words change a lot. My understand of socialism has always been state-controlled economy. Somehow, the 21st century definition is welfare state.
This is statement illuminates the issue. The intel community gathers all kinds of intel all the time, learning with time what works best. They almost never tell anyone without the need to know, what they get. They are even less likely to tell anyone how they got it. You cannot assume that they got nothing. Nor are you in a position to evaluate the evidence.
This actually illuminates the issue further.
It seems like you have never heard of oversight committees or declassification...
That's true. But how do you suppose the intel community justified funding the interrogation methods that we had been exporting for years? "Our Egyptian friends never got actionable intelligence from sleep deprivation, but lets try it". If the excuse is that it is necessary for national security, do you suppose that information relevant to national security had been previously discovered through said means? And if the info is relevant to national security, do you suppose it's classified; or in a public report?
I guess you have never heard of 911. That was the justification for enhanced methods conducted by the US.
Many reports are declassified after some time. Oversight committees even receive redacted classified reports regarding effectiveness of said programs to justify funding. A public report on the effectiveness of torture can evaluate the credibility of a piece of intelligence regarding the location of a dead terrorist. Not much point to keep classifying the means for finding Bin Laden since he is already dead...
No they can't. The link between value, values, and morals doesn't allow it.
Value is different from values. One is talking about the usefulness of something, the other is talking about a principle.
Values: a person's principles or standards of behavior; one's judgment of what is important in life.
"they internalize their parents' rules and values"
synonyms: principles, ethics, moral code, morals, standards, code of behavior
"society's values are passed on to us as children"
Value: the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something.
This includes the value of water and of drinking it when one is thirsty. It is moral to preserve ones life, not amoral. This includes all of the innocuous things we do constantly to preserve our lives. Especially when we preserve our lives through innocuous action. This position will clear up a number of your other questions as well.
1) I was talking about the quenching of thirst. Thirst is a biological reaction of the body indicating low fluid levels. This is completely amoral. It would be like removing your hand from a fire.
The preservation of life is a by-product of eating, removing hunger is the end/concern. When most people decide to eat, they are not thinking, "this will keep me alive," they are thinking, "I am hungry, I should eat."
Of course, there are people who might eat thinking, "I do not want to die from hunger." My claim is that both moral and amoral reasoning exists, so there is no contradiction. Your claim of only moral reasoning does not allow both.
2) Preserving one's life can be regarded in a moral and amoral manner as well.
3) This does not actually address the issue of security and order. In order to maintain a cooperation within a community, security and order are necessary. This can easily be seen throughout history.
Just because you, personally, believe security and order to be a moral end, does not mean that all people must regard them as moral ends.
A good philosophic article defines morality:
The term “morality” can be used either
1. descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
a. some other group, such as a religion, or
b. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/
The key term in this definition is "conduct".
That first definition is fine with me. A code of conduct put forward by a society/group, i.e. a social construct. A subjective morality.
The second definition will require some context from the source.
In the section titled 'Normative Definitions of “morality”':
"Indeed, it is possible that “morality” in the normative sense has never been put forward by any particular society, by any group at all, or even by any individual that holds that moral rules should never be violated for non-moral reasons."
"Those who claim that there is a universal code of conduct that all rational persons, under plausible specified conditions, would put forward for governing the behavior of all moral agents need not hold that every society has a code of conduct that has features sufficient to even be classified as a morality. They can admit that the guides to behavior of some societies lack so many of the essential features of “morality” in the normative sense that it is incorrect to say that these societies even have a morality in a descriptive sense. They can also admit that many, perhaps all, societies have defective moralities, i.e., that although their guides to behavior have enough of the features of normative morality to be classified as descriptive moralities, they would not be endorsed in their entirety by all rational persons."
Not all rational people share the same universal code of conduct or same moral descriptors. This means it is still subjective.
This is why I said your personal belief is relevant. Your claim is different from moral universalists because your claim implies that every person is exactly the same.
Read your own sources.
Economic prosperity must first be seen as a good to be pursued. This is a moral position. Showing through data that X is better than Y for accomplishing Z is a moral argument because your saying "we ought to accomplish Z". It's a statement about conduct.
I already provided an example of one type of rationale that would lead to an amoral support for prosperity. Maybe you should address that.
A little known socialist named James MacKaye agreed with me.
He was not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed:
'As he claimed in the concluding paragraph of his paper, subsequently published in The Journal of Philosophy,[4] "If the radiation theory is sound, [...] it is plain that Einstein has discovered nothing about time, space, motion or acceleration unknown to the Newtonians, or shown that what they have hitherto assumed about those magnitudes is contrary to any fact in nature."'
He does share the same belief of moral universalism. I am not at all familiar with his work so I do not know if he shares your belief that all rational people believe in moral universalism.
Rather than an amoral statement about harming others, this is a moral statement about harming ones self. Your saying that ones life should be valued and preserved enough to refrain from eliminating your source of sustenance.
Since most arguments will lead to the preservation of life, it seems we should focus on this issue.
Why do you believe that preservation of life must be a moral one? Why must it belie instinct? Does a newborn consider its only preservation before crying out of hunger?
Adam Smith used the concepts of supply and demand in describing the workings of capitalism with regards to price determination. This is not the same as a supply and demand model which has an X and Y axis.
You are still confused. The relationship between supply and demand was explained using the Marshallian curve. This was developed by Alfred Marshall to explain the relationship of supply and demand. This does not mean Marshall was the first to recognize the relationship or propose it.
They are the same concept.
PS: Smith used it to justify his theory of the invisible hand which was crucial to his theory of capitalism.
This should be re-written and here's why: It states a reliance on "a priori" models. This implies knowledge that we already have or that is self evident. If you then click on the link for economic models (perhaps to see what kind of self evident model it provides) you find an IS-LM model. This model took a lot of observation and effort to derive and prove. It's far from a priori in nature. Wikipedia gets it wrong sometimes.
You are confused.
You have misinterpreted the phrase "a priori quantitative economic models". It does not suggest that the models are a priori, but that the information used to develop the relationship in the model must be a priori.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
How would a mathematical model or a model in general be justified using only a posteriori information?
The IS-LM model is no different from any other basic mathematical model.
Wikipedia definitely gets it wrong sometimes. Those errors are usually fixed once someone notices it. You have misinterpreted a statement because you lack knowledge in mathematical modeling. This does not mean Wiki was wrong this time.
The ignorance is, again, embarrassingly, yours. Your first quote shows that supply and demand model expresses the relationship between two phenomenon in order to explain a third phenomenon ,price. This presentation implies you think that the S and D model was created for policy makers to determine prices. Your second quotation supports the statement I made that observed phenomenon are understood and analysed by creating economic models. Neither of these quotes properly lead to the assumption that I am ignorant of the topic. If you hadn't just read about it on wikipedia, you might know what you're talking about.
You are still completely confused.
The concept of supply and demand does not have to be true in an actual market. It is a theory. Supply exists. Demand exists. Price exists. The relationship proposed by the theory of supply and demand may or may not be accurate.
Similarly, the theory of gravity does not have to be true in reality. It is a theory. Gravity exists as an observed phenomenon, the theory of gravity may be accurate in describing it.
You keep talking about it as if the relationship is an absolute, that it exists as observed phenomenon and not as a justified theory. That is what makes you woefully ignorant on this topic.
"The only way to advocate for supply and demand would be to say that the model accurately represents the actual phenomenon, not to say that markets should have supply and demand."
The actual phenomenon may or may not exist. This is the point you have missed.
"Supply and demand were observed phenomenon well before they were observed in the context of the model. Capitalism was not built around this model, the model observed the phenomenon in markets, which exist in capitalism."
You have it backwards. Smith, like most modern economists, held S and D as true. This does not mean that it exists anywhere. We just all agree on its existence based on empiricism and rationale. The formulation of capitalism required this model to be true.
"The phenomenon observed in economies are put into models so that they can be analysed and understood. This was the case with the phenomenon of supply and demand, which existed before the model."
There is no actual phenomenon of "supply and demand". Data can be observed and interpreted to justify the theory of "supply and demand", but it does not mean this concept exists absolutely.
Why should we increase our access to food or decrease our likelihood of pain?
Some would call it instinct. We eat when we feel hungry. We instinctively dislike pain. This is how the body works.
Pain is not bad, nor is hunger. Why do you think they are? Isn't this a refutation of moral dogmas that hold suffering and poverty to be good?
Biologically, pain is bad. Unless if you are born with some defect, your body registers pain as bad and hunger as bad. Unless if the body is capable of rationalizing morality, I am not sure how your argument still holds.
People naturally argue for the improvement life without realizing this is a moral position. It's a position that holds life and the quality thereof as values worth pursuing. This idea, though rational, is not self-evident. Nor is it amoral. Many other moral codes have been opposed to the enhancement of life and life's quality.
So which is more important, my individual life; or lives in general? This is a moral question. The ends of capitalism are the individual life. The ends of socialism are lives in general. These are not the same ends. The ends of socialism fit with the ends of Christianity.
That is your perspective based on your rationale. If you believe that your perspective is the only possible one, then you are completely egocentric.
You keep extending your personal justifications to all people. While you, personally, must invoke moral reasoning for all human behavior, this does not mean all people must invoke it as well.
Your second quotation supports the statement I made that observed phenomenon are understood and analysed by creating economic models.
Just to reiterate since you are still confused. "In economics, a model is a theoretical construct representing economic processes by a set of variables and a set of logical and/or quantitative relationships between them."
My second quotation does not support your statement that it is an observed phenomenon.
PS: If you still can't understand the difference between observed phenomenon and theoretical constructs, then there is no hope for this discussion.
The fact that the sun can change the climate does not mean that man cannot change the climate.
In fact, the sun's significant influence on the climate is agreed upon by both sides.
The controversy is regarding man's influence on the climate.
Social and legal institutions such as law enforcement, can make amoral decisions about how best to enforce the law. The idea that law enforcement should be accomplished is a moral one. This goes for other examples of social structuring as well. You keep ignoring the fact that things are done with goals in mind.
The value of order and security within a community can be objectively evaluated without morals. You can use morals to evaluate the benefits of order and security as well. In fact, many societies evaluate social issues from various perspectives including both amoral and moral ones.
Just like how the value of eating when hungry can be objectively evaluated without morals.
That's because, unlike you, I understand that there is more to a subject than it's basic definition. Here's an example from webster:
Socialism: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
Communisim: a theory advocating elimination of private property
I cherry picked the above definitions from a few options. The point is that these are essentially the same, but you and I know there are some differences.
We are not in disagreement about what socialism is, which is why I never took issue with your definition. I only reiterate my claim because you aren't arguing against it, you are just saying it isn't true by using example that fail to show your point.
I provided the full definitions along with examples. There was no cherry picking. Not one of the different usages was similar to/mentioned the other word/concept.
You can also use Wikipedia for a more in depth explanation of moral vs social. I still have not read anything that suggests that all social reasoning must be moral.
By the way, communism and socialism are very similar. Many communist types can also be classified as socialist types. There are differences, but the differences are insignificant compared to the differences between social reasoning and moral reasoning.
I'm not backpedalling about supply and demand.
ME: the concept of supply and demand can be [advocated for] without invoking moral reasoning
YOU: Supply and Demand are observed phenomenon. I don't know what it would sound like to advocate for them.
Either you do not understand what concept means or you are backpedaling. I am guessing you will go with option 3.
When you first mocked, you were conflating the roles of systems and models.
"For example, the concept of supply and demand can be explained without invoking moral reasoning."
"I guess you learned today that supply and demand is only one model in economic theory, although it is a fundamental one in modern economics."
How does that conflate the two?
Are you claiming that an economic model can be explained using amoral reasoning, but an economic system cannot be advocated for or developed with amoral reasoning?
Capitalism was not built around this model, the model observed the phenomenon in markets, which exist in capitalism.
The concept of supply and demand was used in the explanation of the theory of capitalism. The relationship of supply and demand was obviously proposed before that point.
"Adam Smith used the phrase in his 1776 book The Wealth of Nations".
The only way to advocate for supply and demand would be to say that the model accurately represents the actual phenomenon, not to say that markets should have supply and demand.
"Supply and demand" is just the proposed relationship between the two observed phenomenon. There were other models throughout history that proposed other relationships for these phenomenon. Advocating this specific relationship over another would require some form of reasoning. I am saying these reasons can be amoral or moral just like advocating for one system over another.
This is very different from advocating for socialism where it's at least a sensible statement to say that we should eliminate the private ownership of major industries.
We can advocate for socialism over another system based on empirical data. The benefits of economic prosperity can be evaluated amorally just like order and security.
Pain is an amoral phenomenon. Intentionally causing it has moral implications. Accidentally causing it has different moral implications.
What moral implication is there for accidentally stubbing your toe?
If your argument is that socialism is an objectively better way to accomplish something (as advocates of socialism argue), than you are saying that whatever you wish to accomplish is more important than private ownership of industry. Property rights were a fundamental part of enlightenment moral philosophy. Advocating for it's abolition is as much a moral argument as advocating for it's preservation had been. Arguments holding something above property rights, like prosperity, are moral arguments.
Or you can show through data that one system lead to more prosperity than another. How would this be a moral argument?
An amoral argument can be used to refute a moral argument.
My morality is irrelevant. This disagreement is meta-ethical in nature. That's why when I say "moral argument" I don't mean morally right or wrong, just moral in nature.
Your personal definition of morality is relevant. You made many claims about morality that I do not believe to be standard but personal to you.
Claims like the following -
"To promote one system over another, or to develope a new one, one must invoke moral reasoning."
Why must all promotion and development invoke moral reasoning?
"No matter the economic system, if one is advocating it, they must present moral justification or be ignored."
Why would people ignore empirical data showing that one system produced greater growth than another?
"To argue that people should interact in a certain way requires a moral argument."
Kids should not kill their parents because their parents are feeding and sheltering them. It would be an act of self destruction. That is an amoral reason to not kill something. You could also make a moral argument, but morality is not required for all forms of reasoning.
"Usually Pro-Capitalists either pretend to be amoral economists"
What about the ones that are not pretending? Are their amoral reasons impossible?
"In advocating socialism, they were advocating what they thought was a more practical way to accomplish the moral and good end."
What about people who advocate for system A over B because data analysis showed it to A to be superior to B in economic criteria like growth, production, distribution, consumption, efficiency etc.?
"The idea that people improving their lives is "good" makes it a moral issue."
When you feel hungry, you should eat. It will remove the feeling of hunger. It will also keep you alive. If you live in a community with shared food, having a surplus supply in storage would improve food security. A large surplus is easier to maintain in a prosperous economy.
This shows that a prosperous economy is beneficial amorally.
"This is why I said that the rationality of means must be considered in the context of ends. The ends are the moral concern."
The ends can be amoral concerns as well.
"Since behavior relates to society, moral issues are social issues."
Behavior of eating. Behavior of avoiding pain (avoiding fire).
"Amoral good is an oxymoron when discussing human action."
You still have not explained why something like quenching thirst is not amorally good. Just claiming it is an oxymoron does not actually refute the logic behind it.
A person feels thirsty. They drink water to not feel thirsty. This is objectively good because they no longer feel thirsty.
A person touches something hot. They feel pain. By removing themselves from the source of pain, they have done something good for themselves. That is amoral and good.
Generally, economic systems are not developed based on models. Some aspects of some systems have developed from insights provided by models.
Economic systems are just theories based on models. They are theorized by utilizing various models of micro- and macro-economics to justify some theorized process. This is why "supply and demand" was used by Adam Smith, in part, to explain the process of the "invisible hand".
You seem confused about economic systems/theories. Could this be the reason for some of your erroneous claims?
ME: What about using math as the basis for a decision or empiricism in general?
YOU: The way in which habitat for humanity builds houses is amoral. The reasons they build houses are moral in nature. My argument has focused on ends while yours has focused on means.
This does not answer the question at all.
There are several issues here.
1) Your original claim is that social decisions require moral reasoning. You are now talking about the ends as opposed to the reasoning.
2) Even if we ignore means and just consider the ends, not all social ends have to be moral.
Many ends that serve to satisfy oneself are amoral. Basic feelings like hunger, pain, thirst are amoral ends. You have said: "If you want to argue that eating is amoral, that's fine..."
Charities are generally one-sided. This is why their ends are generally moral ones. Economies are generally based on trade/barter. This means that one could help another in order to benefit oneself. That would be an amoral end.
3) As you can see, means and ends can both be amoral. Empiricism is an amoral means of reaching some end. Eating is an amoral end reached through some means. Human behavior does not have to be based on moral means or moral ends.
When I asked why states claim they need to control industry, your answer was lackluster: "They have faith in socialism, that is why they choose it. Just like if a community picks a capitalistic system"
Faith in socialism? Faith that it will accomplish what? Faith that it will accomplish property rights?
Faith that it will provide economic prosperity. People generally choose advocate one economic system over another because they believe it is the one that leads to more economic prosperity.
That's false. You are switching cause and effect. The phenomenon observed in economies are put into models so that they can be analysed and understood. This was the case with the phenomenon of supply and demand, which existed before the model. Similarly, investment and money existed as before the IS-LM model. The model helped central banks determine how to finagle, but it didn't cause the central banking system.
"In microeconomics, supply and demand is an economic model of price determination in a market."
You are woefully ignorant on this topic.
Supply and demand is the proposed relationship between two defined phenomenon. Whether a proposed model correctly models a relationship depends on empirical data and the assumptions necessary (as with all logic).
There are several reasons why the model of supply and demand may be wrong.
People can't be entrepreneurs without property rights.
Look up the rise of tenant-farming during the crisis of the 14th century. We have covered all of this already. This is how early capitalism was formed.
Pointing to a possible early catalyst for capitalism does not explain it's rise and staying power. Institutions allowed that to happen.
Explaining its rise and staying power is a separate issue from our discussion. Institutions and people allowed it to happen. The various reasons behind it would have differed by place and time. I am not sure how this explains your original statement: "2)Capitalism formed as a result of legal institutions that held individual freedom and property rights at it's foundation."
We can't argue that we should be fair amorally. We can't argue that we should have property rights amorally. We can't argue that we should have centralized control amorally. The reasons why we should do things are moral.
We can argue that we need to eat amorally. We can argue the merits of pain amorally. Pain is generally considered amorally bad and eating is generally considered amorally good.
We can identify that our access to food relates directly to how much money we have in certain market-based economies. Increasing our access to food or decreasing the likelihood of pain can all be argued for amorally.
The reasons why we should do some things are amoral.
Your statement that all reasons are moral makes no sense.
I have never said that. "We should adopt socialism because it's better at accomplishing x." This is a moral statement about the goodness of x. When x is promoted at the expense of y, it's because y is not considered as good for people as x. When x is considered good, it is considered right to pursue it.
Things can be evaluated as good/beneficial amorally.
Being pain free is good. Being in pain is bad.
We should adopt systems that avoid pain because pain is bad.
We should adopt systems that avoids hunger because hunger is bad.
No, a cursory search found that knowledge of al-kuwaiti was obtained back in 02 and other info concerning him was collected by interrogators. This included but was not limited to Ghul.
Yes. He gave up a lot of information under standard interrogation including information about Ghul.
After that, they decided to move him to Gitmo(?) and used enhanced interrogation instead. Got nothing from that.
But lets take your position here. Ever since the CIA and other government agencies got the green light from Bush, they have been using advanced interrogation methods. Not because they work though. In fact the CIA and others have used up resources, money, and risked political backlash to carry out enhanced interrogation and it doesn't even work. The perpetrators of these methods must be sadistic (how else to explain the prevalence of methods that are so useless?), but no one acted this way until they got the official go.
They do not have to be sadistic, they just have to have faith in the method. Faith does not have to be based on empiricism as evidenced by your faith in torture and your faith in the bias of the committee members simply because they identify with a political party.
In fact, many bureaucratic programs are funded based on faith/unsubstantiated reasoning rather than empirical data.
PS: Some of the interrogators were probably sadistic, or at least pushed to the point of sadism. If you just search for some of the stories regarding abuse of prisoners of war, you will find some indications of sadism.
This position strains credulity, but tell me if this is not essentially your argument.
By the way. It sounds like your position is "they did it before, so it must work".
I guess evaluating evidence just strains credulity too much.
how else to explain the prevalence of methods that are so useless?
Reason for use explained above.
It is not exactly prevalent either. Enhanced interrogation was the response to 911. The US might not have a good human rights record, but it was not as bad before 911. The terrorists won. They terrorized Americans into giving up many values domestically and internationally.
Additionally, under the Clinton administration we put money and resources into the rendition program, essentially exporting enhanced interrogation methods to countries that had no qualms. There is a long history for these methods, even though they are completely ineffective...
The first known case in the US was under the Reagan Administration. Much like Bush and Clinton, the excuse was that it was necessary for national security. I have no idea what percentage of cases obtained significant intel, but I doubt it would be high considering how many studies (by biased organizations obviously) note the ineffectiveness of torture.
You are using social democracy as the definition of socialism. I have been arguing about that.
I was bringing up your point about social requires moral. Based on Cartman's argument, it seems like he is suggesting the same thing as me. Not all social aspects have to be moral. He even lists financial concerns as a priority over moral concerns.
Did not watch the video. Critiquing the summary anyways.
Racial prejudice depends more on culture and geography than inherent social pressures. A white guy in South Africa is different from a white guy in Siberia is different from a white guy born in California. Time also makes a fairly large difference. One generation gap is a long time. They have different beliefs, behaviors, perspectives, etc. I do not believe it is as simple as inherent social prejudices for an entire race.
In the end, we are all the same even if we are all unique.
Intentional social structuring or organizing always has a moral element. The "various reasons" you specifically didn't focus on are of moral import.
Various reasons indicates that the reasons can be moral and amoral. A social decision can be made empirically without considering morals.
For example, A post office hires seasonal workers for the holidays as past experience indicates that holidays have increased postal activity. The NYPD earmarks funds for a program based on analysis of COMPSTAT data. These are amoral social decisions. I guess if you consider math to be moral, then those decisions would be moral as well.
You still have not supported your claim that social requires moral.
I even provided the definitions for you. They make no mention of this relationship that you claim.
Instead of reiterating the original claim, how about some actual reasoning/proof?
Who starts the fight? If it is an agreement to fight, then the agreement respects the moral implications of picking a fight.
What are the moral implications of picking a fight? They are fighting because they dislike one another. It is like when someone chooses not to eat something that tastes bad.
The mistakes here are yours. "Supply" and "Demand" are observed phenomenon, "Supply and Demand" is an economic model.
You should not backpedal.
I brought up the concept of supply and demand twice before you made your erroneous claim.
"For example, the concept of supply and demand can be explained without invoking moral reasoning."
"the concept of supply and demand can be [advocated for] without invoking moral reasoning."
Unless if you are admitting that you misinterpreted the words "the concept of supply and demand" twice, I am not sure how you can justify backpedaling to "supply" and "demand".
"Supply and demand is not 1 model and socialism another. Supply and demand is one model and production possibilities frontier is another. Both models can help us understand the functionality of Capitalist or Socialist economic systems."
You even pointed out that supply and demand is a model after I mocked you for your error. Now you want to claim that you meant the supply phenomenon and the demand phenomenon instead?
Making up oxymoronic terms and then trying to explain them doesn't help your position. If you want to argue that eating is amoral, that's fine (despite the fact that huge aspects of various morals and norms are concerned with the way in which one eats). You should stop with the "amorally good" position, it's non-sense. All of your examples go from non-sense to sensible if your position was that these things are simply amoral. It would be an entirely different argument since there are moral philosophies that would have a very strong position about appropriate consumption, especially as it concerns animals. Is a gluten's hunger as morally neutral (not amorally good) as a starving mans hunger?
You are right that I should not have equated hunger to blood lust as they are very different.
Oxymoronic?
I see the problem now. You believe that nothing can be good or bad without being moral.
When you stub your toe, the behavior which led to the pain is morally bad? Or is the pain itself morally bad? Both?
I am not sure which type of ethics/morality you follow. It does not seem to be consequential, deontological, or virtuous.
Some sort of objective moral universalism?
What about using math as the basis for a decision or empiricism in general?
A person is unable to objectively determine that option A is better than option B without morality?
What is the reasoning given by states for why a given industry must be controlled? It's not amoral.
They have faith in socialism, that is why they choose it. Just like if a community picks a capitalistic system.
Whether it was reached by majority opinion or minority opinion, there is nothing to suggest that all possibles reasons for such opinions must be moral. It could be one or both, depends on the person(s).
Generally, economic systems are not developed based on models. Some aspects of some systems have developed from insights provided by models. When governments contrive aspects of their system this way, it's either an attempts to enhance the good of it's people, or to seize control. Neither of these are morally neutral.
Most systems are based on models.
For example, most economic systems presume the model of supply and demand. Without it, there would be nothing to explain why the workers who control the means of production have any power/influence.
Same with capitalism. Without supply and demand, there would be nothing to explain why competition in a free market increases innovation and lowers prices.
2) The rise of capitalism had nothing to do with legal institutions. It was just people deciding to become entrepreneurs. There were no property rights. They owned nothing. It was just a shift of burden.
3) They are only oxymoronic to you.
4) If you read the wiki page explaining social democracy, you will notice it fits your points. Not socialism.
The problem is that you think there are social issues devoid of moral implications. There aren't. In your own statements about the goals of socialism and capitalism, you use the word "fair" all while acting like fairness has no moral implication. I am now more convinced that you don't know what your talking about. Smug statements made in apparent ignorance make me embarrassed for you.
Fairness can be evaluated morally and amorally. It is a fairly general term like "balanced".
For the umpteenth time, I am saying that economic systems can invoke both moral and amoral reasoning. I have never "act[ed] like fairness has no moral implication". I am just refuting your statement that "To promote one system over another, or to develope a new one, one must invoke moral reasoning."
That does not make sense at all. People are capable of reasoning amorally just like they are capable of reasoning morally. I have no idea why you think that all reasoning must be moral.
They can also develop new ideas without moral reasoning.
My original response still works: "Of course some people have argued for socialism based on moral grounds, but your claim was not that some people based their positions on righteousness, it was that all positions "must invoke moral reasoning"."
While anal force feeding done on two occasions can be shown to be basicly for torture (to dissuade hunger strikes), putting them in the same category of torture with any other force feeding (which would be necessary) shows bias.
No one claimed enteral feeding was torture. The report claims rectal feeding is torture and notes that it was used at least twice. It also includes numerous other instances of torture.
I am guessing you are going to claim the other types of torture claims are biased as well. Since your claim for rectal feeding failed, what method are you going to argue against next?
Of course, your new claim will also not be supported by a source because the other side of the committee does not want to risk national security.
A cursory search for the capture of bin laden shows that interrogations independently corroborated the name of the courier, al -kuwaiti. That was key to finding him.
Yes. A cursory search will probably get you the original CIA claim that the torture of Hassan Ghul provided the key intelligence to capturing Bin Laden.
Turns out he cooperated and gave the information before being tortured. This is revealed in the CIA's own records. I guess they just wanted to reward him for cooperating.
http://www.businessinsider.com/cia-lied-about-osama-bin-ladens-capture-2014-12
