To piggy back I think world war 3 will happen sometime this decade.
Perfect. Well said!
Thanks - and for the thumbs up, too.
Everybody needs a bit of perspective to soothe their current fears
The problem with contemporary culture is that it believes that there is a 100% entitlement to perfect safety and easy answers, an irrational belief that life should be risk free, an almost childlike faith in the power of science to solve every problem and a penchant for self-pity. The result is a tendency to let emotion get the better part of reason.Partly that is just human nature. However, in the context of the culture and reinforced in the echo chamber that is modern media, the result is a tendency to over-hype risk and to drive policymakers to the most extreme solutions. Science then strays beyond its ambit. Ask science and A+B=C question, it gives an A+B=C solution. Thus the lockdown, a perfectly logical answer to the question of how to stop a contagious disease. However, it takes no account of all the other factors - the costs of a shutdown in economic and human terms, the cultural ramifications and so on.The policymakers, not being expert in science and being all too responsive to a culture that wants a perfect, easy and immediate answer, then drive policy in extreme directions. Thus instead of a balanced approach, the result is that one criteria trumps all the others and the price of the cure often ends up being as bad - or worse - than the disease.Thus how we got to where we are. Hysterical policy debates and a public that swings wildly from hiding under its' bed to protesting the logical consequences of the easy and perfect answers to which it feels entitled.
Lots of good ideas there. But as a scientist, I think your view of the field is misled by society's destructive politicization. Science is nothing more than healthy skepticism combined with curiosity, yet it's often abused and presented as some type of unquestionable tool to further agenda. Accusations like being anti-science along with those believing it's some sort of magical cure for all human ills make me constantly shake my head in disbelief
You seem to have misunderstood me. This...", yet it's often abused and presented as some type of unquestionable tool to further agenda.." was my point. Science is being misused by a culture that attributes to it powers that it does not have. By the same token, when Dr. Fauci begins to talk about abolishing the handshake and creating travel documents for the uninfected, he too is straying well outside of his ambit. There are sociological and legal ramifications to his suggestion that are well beyond the competence of science.Each side would do well to remind itself of their limits and to be more scrupulous of the boundaries of the other side.
Don't judge science harshly because of the fools who wield it inappropriately
Maybe. It wouldn't be the first time I misunderstood something
Dr. Fauci - to use that example - I am told is a paragon of virtue and scientific excellence. Indeed, so far as I am qualified to judge, that he is.The problem is that he does not recognize the limits of his own sphere. However, in this he is as guilty as those non-scientists who have made of him not a scientist but a paragon of virtue. This, as I say, being a deeply rooted cultural problem.
Not to worry. You are one of the most pleasant, articulate and courteous fellows on this site that I have seen. Misunderstandings in this format are just a hazard of the site. You handle them better and with more courtesy than many on this site.
Thanks, that's very kind. Anyone presenting as a paragon of virtue or above question disgraces the scientific method's most fundamental concept of doubt. Dr Fauci may be a respected member but within the field his message inspires a desire to disprove
The quickest way toward becoming a scientific legend is to invalidate a genius's greatest achievement
What is the solution in regards to our established cultural problem?
Too bad the goverments won't allow us to live as we wish
In response to your last point, you are inadvertently revealing part of the problem. That being that not every problem has a solution. Rather, some problems are just difficulties that must be managed as best they can.The problems I listed above - the culture's almost religious belief in science, its need for total security and the assumption that such security can be had if only we know what buttons to push and levers to pull, has its origins almost back to our founding. A nation born from the age of reason and the Scottish Enlightenment and all the rest. Suffice to say, this is not new to our culture and the best that is to be hoped for is that prudent and wiser minds and cooler heads might prevail. As apt as we are as not to be disappointed in that hope as often as not.As to your point about, "The quickest way toward becoming a scientific legend is to invalidate a genius's greatest achievement..." Please understand that it is not my intent to discredit Dr. Fauci. Rather it is to put his talents and their limits in some perspective. He is a very effective scientist - but that does not thereby make him an effective policymaker or sociologist.
@emmily2396 The government gives you ample scope to live as you want - down to legalized marijuana and abortion and much else besides. That is not the problem.The problem is when the public seeks easy and quick answers and forgets - as Aristotle said - that virtue is a mean. To put it another way, as Edmund Burke said, "The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do as they please. We ought see what it will please them to do before we risk congratulations."
I believe the arguments on the coronavirus response is inherently more complicated than those presented in much of the press and by much of the population. Many focus on the surface argument which appears to be economy vs lives. In reality, I believe there is a much deeper discussion to be had and one of the better articles I’ve seen presenting this is from the British Financial Times, which I have linked below. www.google.co.uk/.../8a863b2b-1f6e-4c33-b4e5-e9ac76c39db1
Not everyone is American. In my country our freedom os restricted now
@Wad595 Thanks. Unfortunately I cannot access the article. That said, there is no doubt. You have reporters who are not trained in science, and policymakers who are responding to a public that has an almost religious faith in science but does not understand it, and scientists who are superb at science but ONLY science.Suffice to say you end up, in the media and society generally, with a discussion that is less nuanced and sophisticated than it ought to be. This why, then, we ought give some distance between policymakers politicians and the public. This then to give scope for sober deliberation away from the hyperventilation of the moment.Thus, as James Madison said, it was his hope that debate and deliberation in Congress would "refine and enlarge the public views and give direction to the willfulness of the people." Unfortunately, especially in a national mood of panic and with an all pervasive media in populist times when the people are presumed to be the font of all goodness and the elites the source of all evil, Madison's hope has far less chance of being realized.
@emmily2396 Well, as you neither stated your nationality nor indicate it on your profile, and as I am an American, I spoke - none too surprisingly - in an American context. If you live in Russia, China or some other god forsaken autocracy, my heart goes out to you.In an American context - and a Western context generally - my observation stands.
@nightdrot I'm actually in a HIGH RISK group and I feel fine, and not scared at all! The MEDIA has hyped this up, and has people wetting their pants over this!! Did we close down the whole FUCKING economy with SARS,, N1H1, Bird flu or how many others? NO!!!This is a test run, for the controlling government, the ones that want to see how stupid, and silly people are, and how quickly THEY SURRENDER THEIR RIGHTS< WITHOUT QUESTION, being terrified by the media!!Good work, people!! BAAA, BAAAAAA, like sheep!Good for the Liberals, to know, how fast most "Americans" surrender their RIGHTS!!I mean, it is them, really, and they want to 'protect' us, by taking away rights and controlling. . .What if it is "REAL" next time, and there are some that want to take over?
@JackSmy Well, it is actually a wee bit more complicated than that. However, more sympathetic to your overall position I could not be.However, point the finger of blame in the right direction. We have a public that believes that it is entitled to perfect safety - neglecting that life entails a certain amount of irreducible risk - that wants quick and easy answers and that looks to science with an almost religious reverence. To this add journalists not trained in science, but who are looking for a headline and who have a certain amount of bias. Such bias not being unprecedented in our history but given added amplification by the nature of modern social media.To this add science. Which when given an A+B=C question, offers A+B=C solutions. It is very good at telling the country how to contain a virus, but very bad at weighing against that social, cultural and legal implications of any given choice. Science is not designed to address such things but, given the social expectations, tends to stray beyond its ambit.Finally, to this add policymakers - of both parties and many persuasions - who are not trained in science but who are, especially in a populist era such as that the nation is now experiencing for a variety of economic, demographic, cultural and partisan reasons, hyper responsive to public opinion. They are trying to assuage fears and avoid blame for any deaths - neglecting that there will be some level of casualties - and so are drive to imprudent policies.CONT.
All this in an ever intensifying cycle. This is not simply about liberals exerting power. This is rather about a culture that is asking the wrong questions in the wrong way, ten thumbed and ill thought policies to follow.That said, I am in general sympathy with your preferred outcomes if not wholly in agreement with the reasoning by which you arrived at them. The public is, here, the real source of the problem - the policies are the symptom.For all that, take care of yourself. This illness is real and does impact groups - yourself among them. Do not in the pursuit of prudent principle take imprudent risks. Stay healthy.
I actually believe this pandemic is not a linear event either. Every country, every locality is going through a different outbreak which it could be argued requires a different response. One way of looking at this could be the famous though experiment “the parable of the river”. In this thought experiment a group of villagers see a group of babies drowning but not being able to save them all. Most villagers jump into save a few of the babies but one villager walks away and says he is going to find the source to save more babies. Of course this is very crude as in reality, there would be a lot more variables and in the case of a pandemic, the timeframe is actually reversed as we don’t know the future outcome. But the thought raises the important point of which is the moral right thing to do. Potentially save a few in front of you with immediate results (would some have died anyway is another unknown in the case of the pandemic) or potentially save more by finding the source (another unknown of how many would be saved) or somewhere in between? If in between, where do you draw the line? Of course as I said this is an over simplification but is one way of looking at it and one of the thoughts described in the FT article. A less philosophical way of looking at it would be this article although this one is biased towards lockdown skepticism - blogs.lse.ac.uk/.../
@Wad595 No argument here. However, to get to the "less linear" nature of the problem you need to identify how we got to where we are. There are certain cultural predicates that brought us to this point. There is a reason why the nation reacted so differently to the 1918-1919 pandemic, some of which were rooted in differences in scientific knowledge at that time, but also have their origins in a culture that perceived risk and the purposes and limits of science differently. To ignore those differences and their causes will leave you arguing with an earthquake.You seem to assume that if you just show the public the data - forget the limits of the data itself - that they will just slap their collective hands to their collective heads and say, "Omigosh! Why didn't we see this sooner?" Not likely.More likely that the culture will simply - as in fact it already has and is - perceive the data through the lens of its cultural preconceptions. You will change the inputs, but not likely the outcomes.
The public will likely interpret the data how they want to, as you say biased by their background. In terms of the response however, it has however almost been globally consistent. What started in China was implemented across half the world with little thought.
@Wad595 Sort of my point. Although there is a significant difference between the kind of lockdown China implemented - with people literally imprisoned and locked in their homes - and that in the West, where grocery stores remained open and all the rest.A difference of degree, at some level, becomes a difference in kind. In that, this is a more complex phenomenon than your formulation postulates. The least common denominator being that emotion and impression has drive action with reason at a discount. To be sure, not unknown in human nature.
I’m sure a Chinese style lockdown is highly effective. As you say bolt everyone’s front doors and keep people inside for a month. And the virus or some people or both eventually die out. To some extent, a reaction like that would be expected from the public as you say, where the initial plan appears to have not worked as well as the initial plans of other nations. Of course this in itself is a simplification, going back to the non linear nature of the event and the fact that humans are not homogenous.
@Wad595 My point regarding the nature of the Chinese lockdown was hardly to laud it, but rather to highlight its brutality. As to its effectiveness, as Chinese numbers are utterly unreliable we may never know.As science, abstractly applied, it would seem logical that it was highly effective. However, my central point in all of this was, non-linear nature of the event or no, was that, as Aristotle said, virtue is a mean.If you really want to stop the disease, keep even the power workers and the medical workers and the farmers and all the rest at home. Shut down all human interaction and you will stop the disease cold. However, it will hardly be worth the price.
That last paragraph was my point.
It is likely humanity will never agree on what was the right thing to do though. It is a philosophical question which I’m sure will be a subject of endless debate.
@Wad595 The fact that there is no agreement does not mean that there is no a right answer. With time and experience a consensus will be likely arise. It is the mistake or moral relativism to say that nothing is right or wrong but only thinking makes it so. That error not being improved by dismissing the argument as "philosophical" as indeed "right" and "wrong" are themselves philosophical.
Humans are not homogenous. There will therefore never be agreement on what is right.
@Wad595 So, as humans are not homogenous, it would have been perfectly okay to throw Jews into ovens?See also this question and my answer to same: No opinions are right or wrong. Agree or disagree? ↗
What’s that got to do with it? I said there will never be agreement on what is right. If there is agreement, why doesn’t everyone vote for the same party in election?
@Wad595 The point is the fact that there is disagreement does not mean that there is not a right and a wrong. That was my point.To you, the fact that there is disagreement between Nazis and others on the morality of throwing Jews into ovens does not make throwing Jews into ovens right for them and wrong for everyone else. It makes the Nazis mistaken about what is right and what is wrong.
Type-o:This sentence - "To you, the fact that there is disagreement between Nazis and others on the morality of throwing Jews into ovens does not make throwing Jews into ovens right for them and wrong for everyone else. It makes the Nazis mistaken about what is right and what is wrong."Should read - "To you, the fact that there is disagreement between Nazis and others on the morality of throwing Jews into ovens MAKES throwing Jews into ovens right for them and wrong for everyone else. In truth, it makes the Nazis mistaken about what is right and what is wrong."
That’s an extreme example where human instinct will give rise to the majority of people saying it’s wrong. Look at less extreme examples, not involving mass genocide or torture. There will be far less agreement - abortion or contraception for example. The issue I have with thinking that there is always a moral right is that it gives rise to conflicts between differing beliefs, some involving mass violence as seen throughout history. It’s an authoritarian concept.
@Wad595 Well, by your own logic, who said that is extreme? How is it extreme - using your relativistic logic?Why is genocide or torture extreme if extremism is a subjective call?
The example you are using is extreme by most people’s standards.
@Wad595 Well, it wasn't to 80 million Germans in 1940. So again, what makes it extreme? As you say, humans are diverse and there are disagreements and therefore there is no right or wrong. So - apply your logic. How is it extreme?
You’ve just answered your own question.
I don’t know where that 80 million comes from but most did not support mass genocide out of choice. It is instinctively human to not support such a cause.
Now apply your logic to the contraception question.
@Wad595 Still waiting for your answer. (80 million was the population of Nazi Germany in 1940, by the way.)Nice of you to say that I answered it - though how mystifies me - but I am asking you to apply your logic that nothing is right or wrong because humans are diverse and opinions differ.That is your argument - so apply it. Why is throwing Jews into ovens wrong? Wrong itself is problematic as a concept since, for you, it is merely a function of numbers and opinion.So... c'mon out little kitty... make your case.
Now you are just being silly. I don’t argue with silly people. Bye.
@Wad595 No, you made an argument and failed to back it up. Then you danced around it when challenged and now you fall back on ad homimems. Not an impressive performance.Oh well. Adieu.
That is what you did.
@Wad595 No, I cracked a joke at most. Oh, and I thought you were done? If not, I still await the answer to the question. You telling me that I answered my question is not the same a YOU answering my question, after all.
You haven’t answered my question. Oh right you were joking. Nothing more to say then.
@Wad595 You have yet to answer mine and mine cuts to the central issue of the plausibility of your argument. Plus, I asked first.So I still await - even as you protest that you are done - for the third time. Do you see a second contradiction there?
Well you keep asking more questions. My answer to your last question - not really.
@Wad595 Asking one question and now this is the 4th time you have said that you are done. Really, when in a pit, the best way to start to get out is to stop digging.
Well said. So stop digging.
@Wad595 Fifth time. I have placed a question that you cannot answer and to which you have responded with numerous non sequiturs even as you say that you will not further respond.So who is doing the digging here?
Well for the fifth time you are trying to skirt around my question, then trying to make me look like the one doing what you’re doing. And then thinking putting numbers on it makes any difference.
@Wad595 My question came first and is more elemental to the central point of our dispute. Oh, and by the way, now 6 times.
I answered your question. You just didn’t take it as an answer because you didn’t agree with it. Fair enough if you don’t agree. I believe my question is just as elemental to the central point of our dispute. Oh, and by the way, now 6 times.
@Wad595 No you did not. You said I answered my own question, which is NOT the same thing as YOU answering my question. To wit, how is genocide wrong if people are diverse and therefore right and wrong have no definitive answer but are merely a function of opinion? Are right and wrong a function of mere popularity?So, answer the question. Also, now at 7 times.You really have no sense of irony, do you?
Because the vast majority of opinions say it’s wrong.
@Wad595 So if tomorrow, the vast majority should change their minds, it would be right?
That won’t happen because human instinct would make the vast majority of people say it’s wrong.
@Wad595 Really? Nobody though the Holocaust would happen. Nobody thought the Armenian genocide would happen. Nobody thought the Killing Fields would happen. Have you seen the "ethnic cleansing" in Europe in the 1990s. Have you seen the fate of the Uighars in China now?You need to study a lot more history and you really need to think more deeply on these questions. At minimum, you greatly underestimate the depravity to which human nature can sink.
I think you are the one who needs to study history. Those have happened as a result of moral objectivists thinking their way is the only way and forcing it upon others.
@Wad595 Really? I say there is a right and a wrong. You say there is not. So which is more likely to create evil in the world.The moral objectivists STOPPED the Nazis and the Communists. They stopped the ethnic cleansing. You would have yawned and said, "Well, that's up to them."By the way, want to compare credentials? I have worked in politics for 30 years, I have a degree in communications and political philosophy, I have been published in the Washington Post, the Washington Times and several other papers and my book collection - when we moved - estimated my book collection as weighing in at about 2 tons.Care to compare? I sense hubris from a young man who does not know what he does not know.
I sense arrogance in your tone and a man who has no respect for the views of others. Does your objectivism teach you that it’s ok to be rude and disrespectful to others?
@Wad595 No, I think I have been polite. You started with the ad hominems. I merely pointed to the error in your thinking - the point of the discussion - and drew the conclusions. Then when you challenged my credibility I offered my credentials.Hardly arrogance. Part was the point of the discussion. Part to illustrate from which basis I make my observations.
What has that got to do with the argument? Nothing. Saying to someone “cmon out little kitty” is not polite and has nothing to do with the argument either. Moral absolutists defend beliefs based on assumptions. They try to persuade others of their belief, sometimes through violence when you look back through history. A moral absolutist who needs to persuade large amounts of people of his moral absolutes is acting just like a moral relativist, regardless of what he claims. Morals change through negotiation. Moral absolutists apparently believe that morals change through negotiation also. They're just not honest about it. They pretend that they don't have to persuade moral relativists, even as they're trying to persuade them. That is not conducive to human happiness in society.
@Wad595 On the first point, that was a joke. Appropriate to the intellectual tap dance that you have been doing. Besides, that came after your first arrow.As to your second point, you would have been content to leave the Jews to be thrown into ovens. After all, it worked for Germany, so good enough. This conducing to human happiness and the greatest good for the greatest number how, exactly?The problem with your premise is that you assume that peace and harmony is the spontaneous state of the human condition. Stand aside and live and let live and all will be well.Of course, history begs to differ. You see that which is wrong and call it right and mutatis mutandis you will have peace. Well, peace you will have - the peace of the prison camp. As to happiness, those with the power to enforce their vision of right will certainly be happy.It is staggering the monstrous crimes that you would allow by the fiat of not calling them crimes at all.
Your first point is irrelevant to the argument. Secondly, you keep coming back to that point. Godwin’s law is being reached. At no point have I ever claimed that I would be satisfied with such a terrible outcome. My issue with moral absolutivism is that it is a form of collective authoritarianism. I do not assume at all that peace and harmony is the spontaneous state of the human condition. What makes you so sure that the moral absolutists promote peace and harmony and in good will? By your logic, the moral absolute must be reached and everyone must be made to conform to it. Chaos ensues as many disagree and mass violence occurs.
@Wad595 Why would you not be satisfied? After all, there is no right and wrong. So now you want people to fight for positions - as so many did in WWII - for something which is neither right nor wrong.At this point you have simply become inconsistent. If there is no right or wrong, then you have no basis on which to oppose the other side of any argument. Tally the vote and if the Nazis win - well , they win. Whatever follows being the consequence of the majority's preferences which define right and wrong.To add where your thinking leads - “Cultural relativism has used this deceit to gain power. The absolute relativists want to assert their sincere desire for dialogue UNTIL they become a majority. Then they often want to settle issues by either exclusion or coercion. They first argue for democratic fairness, but when they acquire their majority, they are tempted to turn immediately to a triumphalism that assumes that liberal justice has triumphed. From then on, dialogue about truth is forbidden, and about absolute truth is absolutely forbidden.”
P. S. Oh, and to give you some idea of the pedigree of your ideas:“Communism has never concealed the fact that it rejects all absolute concepts of morality. It scoffs at any consideration of "good" and "evil" as indisputable categories. Communism considers morality to be relative, to be a class matter. Depending on circumstances and the political situation, any act, including murder, even the killing of hundreds of thousands, could be good or could be bad. It all depends on class ideology... It has infected the whole world with the belief in the relativity of good and evil. Today, many people apart from the Communists are carried away by this idea.”― Alexander Solzhenitsyn
So in your last paragraph they are turning into absolutists. In fact they always started as one. Since they are arguing for their position and then using coercion to turn other people to their beliefs. When you turn what you said around the absolutists want to assert their power through force. They become a majority and continue in their crusade to force beliefs.
@Wad595 No, if morality flexible, you make it what you want it to be. Recall, as you yourself argue, morality is what the majority says it is. There is no fixed standard by which we judge right and wrong.Take that standard away and you are left with the ethic of power. He who has the power to impose their will has the moral right to do so. They are judges in their own case.That is the essence of your argument. Irreducibly in the end, each decides what is moral and where that applies collectively, we judge not by any objective standard, but by the will of transient majorities - in whom you place an unjustified faith that they will always - ALWAYS - decide for peace and happiness.
Well power is how humanity works. But in your moral absolutist logic, you’re relying on that 1 moral absolutist person to take humanity in the right direction. So who is that 1 moral absolutist person and who’s to say that person is right since they don’t have a crystal ball?
@Wad595 No, I do not assume perfection. I assume that we argue about right and wrong - in government, in schools, in churches, in city halls, and in a thousand other venues. It is not given to fallible beings to know morality perfectly, only to know that there is a morality to be discerned through reflection and historical experience. However, if morality does not exist at all, then the beast is unleashed. You lose all standing to oppose ethnic cleansing, the Holocaust, rape, and any other depravity. You cannot set a standard if there is no standard to strive for and aspire to.Thus you are left to power. You say that it is how the world is governed. So it is very often. However, the question is OUGHT it be. My answer is No. Your answer is a shrug of the shoulders.
“You cannot set a standard if there is no standard to strive for and aspire to.” Who’s to say that what’s good for one culture is exactly the same for another culture?
@Wad595 Well, the German culture of the 1930s and 40s said throwing Jews into ovens is right and good. What say you?
No a few people said that And then coerced or forced others into believing it’s the right thing to do based on their power. Also let me give you another problem. “ if a moral absolutist holdS that one should never lie or deceive. If faced with a situation where a murderer will kill an innocent person, unless you lie about the person’s whereabouts, the moral absolutist would insist that you tell the truth.”How do you deal with the above problem?
@Wad595 Really? What was the German vote for the Nazis in 1933? How many Germans ran the concentration camps and served as guards?For that matter, in the case of the ethnic cleansing of the 1990s, who carried that out?You are just assuming goodness and purity of motive without evidence to sustain your position.In any case, that you object to throwing Jews into ovens proves that you abide by an objective moral code. Were you consistent, you would have said, "Well, it worked for them."Congratulations, you are an objectivist.
And how do you deal with differing views on contraception or abortion as examples?
I believe that is objectivism on the part of the Nazis. And of course I object to what they did. That doesn’t mean I agree with your objectivism theory in its entirety. I answered your questions. I think it’s only fair you answer my questions so that we can have a constructive dialogue. “ if a moral absolutist holdS that one should never lie or deceive. If faced with a situation where a murderer will kill an innocent person, unless you lie about the person’s whereabouts, the moral absolutist would insist that you tell the truth.”How do you deal with the above problem?And how do you deal with differing views on contraception and abortion?
@Wad595 @Wad595 See my reply to these questions:1) Are you pro-abortion or anti-abortion? ↗2) Do you believe an aborted fetus was a human life or not? ↗3) Why does it seem like the pro-life cause is losing internationally? ↗4) Do you support capital punishment? ↗These I offer to save space and accommodate the 2,000 character limit.As to the Nazis. Yes, and they were mistaken. This we know because we had an objective standard to judge against. Here again, take your approach, it was good for them and therefore that is good enough.
You seem to assume that because there is disagreement on what is moral there is therefore no morality. Imperfect beings will get it wrong. The point is that they struggle to discern - again, in government, in the schools, in the churches, in the city halls and a thousand other venues - what is right - accepting that there is an objective right to strive for.
What’s bout this question - “ if a moral absolutist holdS that one should never lie or deceive. If faced with a situation where a murderer will kill an innocent person, unless you lie about the person’s whereabouts, the moral absolutist would insist that you tell the truth.”How do you deal with the above problem?
@Wad595 This is not hard. What is the moral standard? The value and safety is the innocent life. We tell the truth when doing so does not inflict a greater moral harm.To repeat, we struggle to discern right and wrong. We weigh and balance and arrive through reason and debate at what morality dictates is our duty.
So that seems like relativism to me. You’ve just changed an objective belief to satisfy your own end.
@Wad595 Really? My standard is the value of the innocent individual. We seek to protect that individual and do things consistent with that principle.For you it is a flip of the coin. You have no hierarchy of moral standards and it is random and subject to your whim. Again, we learn through experience and reflection what morals are and we then abide by them. For you, as I say, it is random preference and chance.
No it’s not. I think you are completely misunderstanding my thoughts. As an absolutist, it seems all you can ever do is pass judgement based on your own moral standard. All of the evil dictators you keep bringing up had their absolutist beliefs which they forced onto others.
@Wad595 No. Your definition is incorrect. The absolutist says that there is an objective moral standard. We may not know it necessarily and even disagree, but we know that there is a standard that we must discern and aspire to.The relativist says that there is no standard. Therefore he has no basis for deciding between moral choices. If one society says slavery is good and the other is bad, then each is right because there is nothing transcendant beyond the preference of each.By your logic, the Confederacy should have been allowed to leave the Union. You reject, by definition Lincoln's recurrence to "a nation dedicated to a proposition." Because there is no proposition to recur to. Only the preference of the majority.
“Reality is NOT an objective absolute. There's no way to tell whether reality is objective or not because it can only be perceived subjectively. While it could be argued that the consensus of multiple subjective realities equals objective reality, the exact same logic would also assign objective reality to Jung's archetypes, which appear inside every human being's dreams. In any case, measuring something changes the thing measured, so simply perceiving "reality" changes the nature of reality. Therefore, so it can't be absolute.”
@Wad595 Okay, so killing Jews is perfectly fine. There is, after all, no absolute standard. So you cannot object to it.You seem not to be able to get your head around the idea that just because we may not always know what the moral course is does not mean that there is no objective moral standard at all. We argue and debate what morality is so that we might, in time, come to discover what it is. Grant that as imperfect beings we can never fully know.It is not unlike how we discovered other planets. We inferred their existence not because we saw Neptune, but inferred from the existence and laws that governed the other planets that Neptune was there.So we infer morality. We glimpse certain moral principles and from that discern greater moral truths.
And you keep bringing up that first point. There are literally hundreds of flaws to be pointed out in your argument. See here - southerncrossreview.org/48/stewart-morality.htm
@Wad595 That first point is relevant. However, you can apply it to any other example.You think North Korea's is a moral government. You think discrimination against minorities is justified - after all, the majority supports it.As far as your link - I'll read yours when you read mine.At any rate, I use the Holocaust because it is an obvious example. Choose something else if you will. How about female genital mutilation? Just a matter of taste, right?
No they are forced into agreement. And there are plenty of other examples where there are differing equally valid views such as contraception, Abortion etc.
@Wad595 So? They are forced? Why is that immoral if the majority supports it? For that matter, they have the power so there is no moral restraint on its exercise. You keep chasing your intellectual tail. The instant you set ANY standard, you lose your own argument. Either there is right and wrong or there is not. If there is not, then you can hardly object to whoever has the power to impose their will as that is all you have left.
The fact they are forced means the majority are not supporting it. I never argued that morals don’t exist. I said morals are different and will be different for every society. What is moral/immoral to one society isn’t necessarily moral/immoral to another society. Before you bring up your favourite counter argument, morals are negotiated over time based on what that society has learnt is the best way to move forward and how it wishes to do so based on what the consensus is. That is how standards get set within society. That doesn’t make one standard superior to another. I also do not agree that either there is right or wrong or there is not. History is different depending on which side you look at it from. Your last point assumes humans have no emotions or survival instincts.
@Wad595 Yes, but if one society says female genital mutilation is right and the other not, you leave it there. You avoid taking the next step of asking what actually IS moral and what is not. You shy away from any further judgment and thus leave the question unresolved.Back to the Holocaust. The Nazis thought it was moral, the Allies did not. So each held a different standard, and you refuse to judge who was right and who was wrong. So you are right back to the moral relativism you started with. Nothing is right or wrong, but each decides and thinking makes it so.Indeed, even your majoritarian standard does not survive. Majority rules but for minority rights. The majority rules by right - but there is no right. The minority has rights - but there are no rights. Thus you again fall back on raw power as your standard.
In response to Your favourite counter argument, under your logic, anything Is justified as long as it conforms to your objective moral principles whether that be war or torture.
@Wad595 No that is your argument. There are no morals ergo anything goes. Morally, in my argument, there are things that cannot be justified. Morals place limits on our conduct and point us to virtue. You, on the other hand, recognize no morals and thus there are no limits.In effect, what you just did is try to argue that morality is immoral. You really have put yourself in an intellectual hall of mirrors at this point.
Now we are going around in circles. We shall agree to disagree.
@Wad595 No, we are not. You have either misunderstood my argument or are mischaracterizing it. It being logically inconsistent that morality allows you to do whatever you want.Morality is duty and obligation and is transcendent. For you it is relative and thus must be, logically, optional.
You are misunderstanding me. We shall agree to disagree.
@Wad595 No, I am not. I have run into your reasoning a million times. You are hardly original. The mistakes are fairly common, the variability in your reasoning being indicative of the conundrum you find yourself in and hence why you object to things that you cannot logically object to if you are to stay consistent to your own argument.
And I have run into your arrogance a million times and you are hardly original.
@Wad595 So you are back to ad hominems. It is not arrogant to point out that you are making a common error. Indeed, it is why we were having the debate to begin with.Beyond that, how many times now have you said that you were done? So end it, but that does oblige me to accept that we have a disagreement over nothing. Which is the logical implication of your we will just agree to disagree.You are mistaken, and I have no reason to revise that view just because you wish to end the discussion. Which, by the way, I am happy to do when you wish to end it.
Yes you are entitled to your view. But I am just as entitled to my view.
@Wad595 Being entitled does not make you right. That is another conflation - though how you speak of entitlement absent a moral standard is problematic. Again, entitlement suggests a right standard and that you cannot have if you are a relativist.
I didn’t say I was right or wrong. I didn’t say you were either.
@Wad595 That was not my last point. I merely noted that you cannot logically speak of entitlement absent a moral standard - which you do not have. You cannot have something by right if there is no right.Yes, I understand that you are not saying that either you or I is right. I am and the funny part is that you cannot because there is no right or wrong in your construction. Thus by default, in an odd way, you forfeit the argument even really before it began.
Fine. I’m not arguing. I am simply conveying my thoughts. If you argued, you argued.
@Wad595 We debated. It became an argument - more or less - only when your frustrations boiled over. This now being what? The 15th time you were going to end this?
@Wad595 No. An accurate description of where we find things. I did not call you anything, save frustrated, which your 17th attempt to end this suggests that you are.
And the fact that you are carrying on suggests the same on your part. you have turned this into an ego measuring contest.
@Wad595 No, I have time and it seemed courteous to reply to a conversation that you initiated. You replied to my initial essay, not me to your's, after all.
How polite of you. Thank you very much.
@Wad595 You're welcome.
@Wad595 By the way, just for the record, your profile shows you to be 15. Notwithstanding a few ad hominems and some apparent frustration, you were quite impressive.Well spoken and thoughtful. I can assure you that your disadvantage in this discussion was a lack of experience - and perhaps some gaps in your reading, which with time you will solve. It was not a lack of intellect.A tip of the hat.
Well I am flattered by your compliments. Maybe my view will change with time, who knows. But at this moment in time, I disagree with your view. I must say I still enjoyed our exchange.
@Wad595 Yes, that you disagree was made pretty clear by virtue of the length of our exchange. It would have been odd, to say no more, had you agreed with me all this time.
what if they replace service workers with automation and add universal basic income
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Nice to see a survivor.
@_no_one_ Are you from NJ too?
Nope i am not even American tho.
But i never talked to a survivor and I am amused to find one here
@_no_one_ Oh, haha! Yes, it was really not bad at all. I didn't even have any symptoms or a fever at all.
Nice coz i an really afraid as the cases in mah areas are increasing
@_no_one_ Just do your best to protect yourself and stay home. Wear masks and gloves when out. I did my best and saw no one and went no where, but my dad brought it home from work. I miss my boyfriend, haven't seen him in 2 months.
Ok, i will keep that in mind
It's concerning that you've identified warlord slaughter as terrible when related to Covid deaths instead of the more obvious choice of social media divas using surgical masks as a fashion accessory while people are dying by the thousands.
It doesn't fit you're attitude of righteous indignation
The mask shortage problem isn't anywhere near as bad in my country nor are the deaths. Because we're not being fucking retards going to pep rallies, spring break and protests in the face of a deadly pandemic. You mention the masks as if I'm one of the social media fashion icons. I don't know why you think I can't be righteous or annoyed at your pathetic comparison.
For all the shit I give toward those overreacting fools with a sense of doom, the real danger facing at-risk loved ones still exists. Best wishes and good health to the people you care about
Yeah panicking doesn't solve anything people just need to stay home except for essentials and social distance. Its pretty easy to sit on your ass and watch a load of youtube, or pick up a new hobby.
Yeah, that darned media, reporting facts.
@coffeewithcream well not "just" the media. it's politics too. it's ideology driven. "if you question the "facts", you become a threat, cause you're facilitating that people get ill and die"... this is an ideology more dangerous as that of adolf hitler. because adolf hitler at least narrowed it down to "jews". with this health ideology, you become the threat as soon as you question government decisions.it's crazy to me that nobody sees how insanely dangerous this is!
An ideology?We've been here before. Data from the 1918-19 pandemic show which populations had high infection and death rates. Those that practiced social distancing and wore masks and cancelled public events like parades and dances had lower infection rates. Those that didn't had rate spikes. Questioning government decisions is done constantly. That's democracy. Public service decisions should be made on the best advice given. That's policy, not ideology.
@coffeewithcream you're right. we had this before. in fact we had that many times before. and we never had to put an entire population in quarantene and there was never any signs that this was a "necessary" step this time around. there is not even a sign that this can under any circumstances be necessary.behaving considerate, rising awareness for hygiene in the flu season, wearing a mask when you know that you are infectuous and not attending mass events in an area with high infection rates are all perfectly reasonable.dictating an entire population to stay at home and FORBIDING businesses over the course of months, creating new "emergency laws" that avoid the mechanism of checks and balances, that is a crime against humanity and insanely dangerous ideology.i don't know about america. but in germany we do already have first findings, that those measures actually killed up to 120.000 people in germany (due to delayed or avoided treatment), while crona killed 7000 at best.
I'm unqualified to say whether it's wrong or not
Same but since we aren't qualified, lets assume it's nothing rather than freak out?
Sounds great. Even if we're headed towards potental oblivion, let's at least do it blissfully
How much of your concern arises from the disease risk itself as opposed to secondary ramifications and societal impacts?
Mostly the disease risk itself. A disease that can completely overwhelm the healthcare system means that at a certain point everyone in need of urgent care will simply not get it, and often automatically die. Like you will not be able to surgery and go on ICU if every single place is occupied by a covid-patient. Instead, you’d just die. In the long term a health crisis is also a far worse scenario than the handful of years it takes to recover economically from this. It helps that my country is in really good shape to prevent persistent problems, as debt is quite low.But the impact on the economy is a direct disease risk itself. Tourism, restaurants, bars and alike would get decimated automatically if there are barely any restrictions. Their bankruptcy would not be prevented if most measures are somehow lifted.
What about killer hornets with the flu?