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
Right. Euthanasia need not be mandatory for my statement to hold true.
It sends a very negative message to people that suicide is laudable and a legitimate answer to problems.
Assisted suicide does not legitimize or praise suicide. The only way it would make suicide laudable would be if it were made mandatory.
People die. It does not matter what your personal feelings are regarding death. It is unavoidable.
I don't like this argument. It makes it seem like doctors can now ease up a little and maybe not take as measures as before with the knowledge that their patient may elect for euthanasia.
Why would it let doctors ease up? You just assume that doctors will suggest it as an option. The issue right now is that doctors cannot even discuss it with a patient when the patient brings it up. Liability prevents them from even addressing the issue of suicide. Ignoring a problem, won't make it go away.
Can you clarify this? I feel like if it means what I think it means, you're wrong.
If a person is suffering tremendously from a terminal illness, suicide will be in the back of their mind. The conviction to carry it out is another matter. Since suicide is taboo, people bottle up everything. Openly discussing it can actually help prevent suicides.
I could honestly care less about UK taxpayers. I'm arguing from a point of view that values life.
The purpose of life is to live, because everyone dies.
If you truly value it, then you should recognize there are certain kinds of life that are not worth living. Even with euthanasia prohibited, hospitals can still "pull the plug" on living patients based on family consent. Even non-terminal patients who suffer from chronic pain commit suicide. Even if the life expectancy is inaccurate, extending the life of a terminal patient just so that they can be in pain for a while longer makes no sense.
This really should not be a reason to kill someone.
You are not killing them. A doctor is assisting the patient with suicide. Since suicide is taboo, many people try and fail by themselves. These failed attempts only push the individual further into depression. If these people could have opened up to a doctor earlier, they would have received counseling.
They are going to die anyways. It seems like you cannot accept the fact that people die.
Exactly. When you equate animals with humans in situations like these, things go awry.
Why do things go awry? Plenty of people treat their pets as family. What is difference between one family member and the other?
The article wasn't really relevant. If doctors are giving inaccurate timetables for a patient's life expectancy, euthanasia seems even less reliable.
How is it not relevant? It shows that doctors are hesitant to give patient's their best estimate because of the taboo of death.
"physicians would knowingly provide an inaccurate estimate of survival time, usually an overestimate"
"Although nearly everyone agrees that frank, open and honest communication between a patient and his doctor is optimal, on this one absolutely crucial issue it remains very much the exception. As a consequence, two out of three patients may have to make important medical and personal decisions based on missing or unreliable information."
"Recent studies, for example, confirm that many terminally ill cancer patients with unresponsive disease nevertheless receive chemotherapy."
Forcing patients to undergo painful procedures just alienates the terminally ill even more. This deepens their depression in an already depressing situation.
Sure there is.
Can you give an example of alternatives? "Sure there is" means nothing.
I already said that some patients are put into drug-induced comas because the pain is too extreme. Do you have some secret medical technique?
If you boil the problem down to emotion and feelings, it would be highly ineffective.
You are boiling the problem down to emotion and feelings. You make the moral argument that doctors are killing patients.
"This really should not be a reason to kill someone."
I have cited actual studies regarding terminally ill patients and the care they receive. I have even pointed out that it is cheaper for the patient/family and the taxpayers.
No, I'm saying that in both cases it is the job of the Legislature to decide if these policies should be legal.
What is your point here?
We are debating the merits of euthanasia as any legislative body would.
I think it's much different than these things as a life is on the line. But I suppose that's where we disagree.
Lives are on the line for those as well.
Gambling debts can destroy a life. It can ruin the lives of the children as well.
Drinking can also kill: drunk driving, domestic disputes, acute poisoning, long-term effect, and more. Not the mention the social issues regarding alcoholism.
Smoking is similar to drinking.
Unsafe sex definitely kills. In fact, certain STDs are the cause for a great number of terminal patients.
I have pointed out the professional opinion on the matter. I have pointed out a study that shows the taboo of death only prevents the patient from getting the correct information. I have pointed out the fiscal reason for euthanasia.
All you have done is reiterate the the counter: "that reason is not enough to kill someone." That is a completely arbitrary and moral point. You should provide some objective counters.
Even if you cannot respond...
The big bang started with all of the universe condensed into a point- which I would like to point out is a black hole. The known observable universe has a mass of 3*10^55 grams. This amount of mass in a sphere with a radius of 4.456e25 meters would be a black hole.
a point is most definitely less than a sphere with a radius of 4.456e25 meters
While the early universe would have certainly behaved like a black hole beyond the event horizon, there is no way to know what happened within, much like a black hole. The Big Bang theory actually suggests that space expanded outwards. That means reality was expanding.
The name Big Bang is a misnomer. It is not an explosion in the sense that everything moves away from the center. Every piece of the universe moved away from each other.
This is different from a singularity.
Now, a black hole is an object with such immense gravitational attraction that not even light can escape. However, the radius of the universe today is 4.4e26 meters- we are not in a black hole.
It is postulated that nothing existed beyond the universe prior to the Big Bang, so we have no idea if the gravitational field even extended outwards.
Light would not even exist outside of the universe, at least not in the same way it exists here.
Since an object traveling at the speed of light would be unable to escape a black hole, yet the expanding universe did in fact escape, I can assume that the universe was expanding faster than the speed of light.
General Relativity excludes the possibility of actual FTL. You can assume the universe was expanding faster than the speed of light, but you cannot assume that matter was moving beyond the speed of light. Think Futurama engine.
Black holes prevent matter and even light from escaping. Gravity does not have an effect on space as General Relativity is based on the fact that curvatures in space create gravitational fields.
According to Einsteins theory of relativity, time decreases as speed increases, halting at the speed of light. If the universe were expanding faster than the speed of light, it would have been traveling backwards in time.
Special Relativity is different from General Relativity.
Special Relativity asserts that light does not have a inertia reference point. It is constant. It also explains the concept of dilation in time and distance. This does not mean that time stops at the speed of light. Special Relativity is only relevant for STL speeds.
up until very recently (on a cosmic scale), when the universe reached a radius past 4.456e25 meters, the universe was in fact getting younger as it expanded past the event horizon of the big bang black hole. Even now, galaxies are expanding away from each other faster than the speed of light (though this is relative to the galaxy, so no backwards time travel)
Expansion of space/reality is different from the displacement of matter. General Relativity and Special Relativity apply to space/reality.
Matter exists in space. It can move around in space. Space might exist in something else and would have its own set of rules in that medium.
The universe was not getting younger because the event horizon most likely did not exist outside of the universe, at least not in the way that it would exist in our universe. It would also not get younger because you have misinterpreted Special Relativity.
The expansion of space is different from the movement of matter. Everything in the universe is expanding (maybe uniformly). That means every piece of it, including us. Galaxies do not move faster than light in terms of space. The space of distant galaxies do expand away from one another at FTL.
According to the current model, we are accelerating. Eventually, every particle in the universe will be expanding away from one another at FTL. No idea how that works.
Returning to the original question: what happened before the big bang?
well, first we have the universe expanded past its event horizon
then the black hole expanded within its event horizon, while simultaneously the universe as we know it aged
and then, the universe particle exploded in an event known as the big bang.
Does that answer your question?
No. It does not answer the question. You have a mistaken interpretation of several scientific theories/laws.
If I lived in a predominately muslim nation, I WOULD EXPECT THAT THEY WOULD HAVE A MUSLIM PRAYER IN MANY OF THEIR SCHOOLS! If I were so insecure and offended by a nation's majority faith and expression of their heritage, I would take my child to schools that do not prayer, or home school them, etc.
Freedom of religion applies to all religions, not just the majority one.
You have a different interpretation of the First Amendment than most people in the US.
I live in America where we can believe anything we want, where we are never forced to pray along, where we can go to any school we want that more fits our beliefs. IT CALLED SCHOOL CHOICE THAT THE GOP HAS TRIED TO PASS FOR DECADES NOW!
Private schools can choose. Public schools cannot. If a government institution supported some random procedure, it would probably violate the rights of the minority. For example, anti-miscegenation had majority support for a long while. Should the federal government support it since it was the majority opinion? Or should SCOTUS have ruled against it as they did in 1967?
Again. Freedoms and rights apply to everyone. Not just the majority.
Streets exist in cities. To walk from end to end of a city you would need to walk along its streets. Same principle applied.
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.
The "ends" in "ends of the Earth" would only have one definition/interpretation, unless if you are suggesting that it is a double entendre.
On the basis of my first answer ‘ends of the Earth’ could fit into any of these, with your #4 example bearing the strongest resemblance. I am somewhat surprised you gave this as an example though, particularly since it seems to encompass the very aspect of my argument you have refuted repeatedly in relation to the Bible.
If I am interpreting this statement correctly, I believe you are suggesting that verses in the Bible have multiple correct interpretations. This would mean that the Bible itself has multiple correct interpretations.
So, pray, what is the difference in meaning between the word ‘extremity’ (#1) and ‘limit/bounds’ (#2), when both exist as synonyms for the other and are thus interchangeable?
Read the entire definition. It provides context to those specific words.
The extremity in #1 is the lengthwise portion of something that is longer than it is wide or broad. How would that be equivalent to a limit/bounds that indicates the full extent?
What is the difference in meaning between the word ‘extent’ and the word ‘length’ when the latter exists as a synonym of the former along with the words: degree, scale, level, range, scope and area?
What is the difference in meaning between ‘walking from end to end of a city’ and ‘walking from end to end of a tunnel’ other than the place in question?
Same as above. You are isolating words in a definition without regard to context.
I think you might be confused about the format of a dictionary. Each number represents a distinct form of usage.
As do cities. As do towns. As does the world. Otherwise we would not have measurements for them. You cannot examine the length without obtaining the distance - the two are entwined.
A city, town, or world does not have a lengthwise extremity that is longer than it is wide or broad.
You need to learn how dictionaries work.
Bearing in mind the ‘area’ examples you provided all exist inside one big sphere, but I suppose this is inconsequential if you are effectively positing that a sphere does not have the capacity for measurement.
In a bid to reel this back to your central argument, what specifically does any of this have to do with the apparent flatness of the Earth?
A square is composed of two triangles. When one describes the shape of the square, one generally does not point out that the triangles contained within have three points. In the context of the verses, it makes no sense.
When describing the "ends of the Earth", it would not make sense to relegate those "ends" to some arbitrary part of the Earth.
This has nothing to do with the original argument. I was just pointing out that your interpretation of orange slices does not work.
:O But an orange in its wholeness is a sphere! Does this not counter your preceding point?
Refer to the above explanation.
How so? You would need to measure the orange from its interior in the same way you would with the Earth. That does not mean the rest of the Earth, or the rest of the orange is non-existent just because we are concerning ourselves with measuring distance.
This is because the verse was talking about the measurement of the Earth, not a part of the Earth.
“These were the visions of my head while on my bed” [Daniel 4:10]……You mean like what is actually recorded in the Bible? Right. Furthermore are you implying that, should someone have a dream where they have grown wings and can fly like a bird it is an accurate picture of how human beings physically experience things in reality?
You claimed that the entire Bible was dictated by God. These dreams/visions were inspired by God. A normal person's dream can be full of random errors. God is perfect, remember?
Excuse my incredulity.
Yes he could have done, but by this stage he probably thought that would be too small an approach to take. Comparable to, say, you having never been to the top of a skyscraper like The Shard and a friend visits there and relays to you the magnificent view from the tip: the account may conceive a positive impression in your head about the scene but this would ultimately not be cemented until you’d ventured all the way there and experienced it for yourself. Also the good view acquired from half way would be automatically enhanced as you reached closer the top.
Jesus had been on several mountains throughout the Bible. I am not sure how this nameless mountain would be different.
Sometimes when we are on the periphery of decision-making, time, place and perspective can serve as the ultimate nudge in propelling us to make said decision: the same tactic was being employed here. It was of especial importance to the devil because it was something of a last resort - therefore, it could not be enough to simply feature perspective; he would need to magnify his influence by manipulating all possible factors such as locomotion i.e. Jesus engaging in the act of walking higher and higher up the mountain. This way, the devil hoped that the amalgamation of the vision’s content and the physical sensation of the mountainous surface would work in his [devil’s] favour.
So you are saying that the devil can conjure visions into Jesus's mind, but could not emulate the sensation of an extreme altitude as well? What happened to supernatural powers?
The vision was the principle tool, but as a physical location the mountain served to enhance its effect.
If he wanted to, he could have done the desert and temple stuff all inside of Jesus's mind as well. He didn't. He chose to use a physical desert and a physical temple. Why would he suddenly rely on visions for the last test while still climbing a mountain?
The point is that you were pressing this from the beginning, only to then in your prior post deny that ‘ends’ had any relationship with flatness, whether fully or partially. I followed along with this in my arguments, only for you to then claim that I was confused as to the difference between line of sight and ends when it was your doing, not mine.
A relationship with flatness does not mean it indicates flatness.
For example, let us say I wanted to prove that it was rainy (flat) instead of sunny (spherical) today. Cloudy skies are related to rain, but not indicative of rain. I could use cloudy skies to prove that it was not sunny (not spherical).
By the way, this has nothing to do with the actual argument. Same as orange slices.
Once you slice an orange you are exposed to its interior, right? Therefore, any measurements you obtain from the interior translate to the orange as a whole.
Interior measurements do not translate to the whole. Read the verses. They refer to distances of the Earth, not a part of the Earth.
It shouldn't lead to you losing your gun rights either.
It does if the admission of guilt shows a drug problem. That is the current legal requirement at least.
PS: I don't think his arrest was for drug possession, which is why his confession of drug possession was not used against him.
Interesting point. Forgot all about Israelis.
You should note that it is not a denomination of Judaism and practitioners are referred to as Hiloni which means non-religious.
So I was wrong about it being a new religion or denomination since your idea of selective teachings would be neither.
The USA is not too bad. Nothing is safe.
https://www.yahoo.com/travel/bp/
"Two days after Mr. Roof tried to buy the weapon, an examiner at the F.B.I.’s national background check center in Clarksburg, W.Va., began investigating his criminal history. The examiner found that Mr. Roof had been arrested this year on a felony drug charge, but not convicted. The charge alone would not have prevented him from buying the gun under federal law. But evidence that Mr. Roof had been convicted of a felony or was a drug addict would have resulted in a denial, so she continued to investigate his background."
He was never convicted so there was no crime for the state to update. The point of denial would have been his drug addiction which required an investigation because he had no prior conviction.
"Because Mr. Roof had been arrested in a small part of Columbia that is in Lexington County and not in Richland County, where most of the city is, the examiner was confused about which police department to call. She ultimately did not find the right department and failed to obtain the police report. Had the examiner gained access to the police report, she would have seen that Mr. Roof had admitted to having been in possession of a controlled substance and she would have issued a denial."
The admission in the police report was enough to establish his drug problem which would have been enough to deny the purchase.
I will repeat again. There was no conviction to properly record or update.
I can see how it is broken, I just don't agree with what you think is broken. There should have never been an investigation. The database should have been updated with the crime he admitted to and immediately rejected.
You don't seem to understand the criminal justice system. Admission of guilt to a police officer does not constitute a conviction of a crime.
