Speaking for myself, i'm really not clever, not compared to many academics in specialised fields. People like that really have my admiration. Philosophy can be made easy or difficult - both are important - it's really about talking and thinking about things, that's all.

And i definitely agree that when thinking about the right to decision to make, some people are acting in way that seems quite primitive really - the survival of the fittest ethic is still going strong. Of course, lots of people seem consciously aware of this primitive instinct, and hold to it like it is a philosophy; Social Darwinism could be an example.

It's fairly unlikely that they didn't already know. It's very likely that when they say they didn't know, it's just to cover their butts. If they knew and said so they would be in deep trouble. Many people at that time did know that they didn't and said so and were ignored.

This post was last modified: 02-25-2008 12:06 PM by Skorian.

Yep, and the question as Skorian said, did the administration already know and base it's plans to further economic agenda of the country or themselves? Maybe we'll know in a couple years?

As for Kant's rule, I'm tired of trying to think of something that doesn't work, but the sheer fact that it is so flexible in how detailed you can be when creating the maxim I think lowers it's credibility, sure it always gives an answer, but would you really feel confident in basing decisions off of it? I wouldn't

But in comparison I read John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism which says:

"the moral thing to do in any situation is the action that causes the greatest sum total of pleasure for all sentient beings involved"

I didn't think it held very much water at all... To say that morality is based on the outcome of a situation and not how you came to the decision, just seems ridiculous to me. Using this logic, a person who saves someone from drowning to receive some money is just as moral as someone who saves that same person from drowning because it's the right thing to do and since in the end the same outcome is reached they are equal in moral worth, completely wrong if you ask me...Another thing that bugs me about Utilitarianism is that there is no way to know how much happiness someone will derive from an action, and on top of that there isn't even a way to measure happiness, how can you weigh each side and determine which caused the most pleasure if you can't even be sure how much pleasure it actually caused?

On a side note I thought it was really interesting that after taking that personality test,finding out I was an INTP and reading about it, I found that it;s in my personality to seek universal truths and underlying principles....That's funny maybe I'm just programed to think like this...

On the topic of consciousness, I was thinking today...Is it possible to create consciousness? For instance we have now made robots that can think, does the fact that they can think give them consciousness? Following Descartes' I think therefore I am, yes they think so they are right? I would argue we create consciousness when we clone things, but then again there are things about twins that give them almost a split consciousness feel to them, is anyone here a twin? Theres a book my roommate is reading for his science fiction class called Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Very strange question, I wonder what the robots we have made think about? I mean I know it can't be anything substantial probably just like which pattern of blocks they like or something, it's thinking at the level of an infant btw...

Then there was that robot that tried to escape....lol

This post was last modified: 02-25-2008 11:48 AM by NeverMore.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this how governments operate? On a personal, individual level this train of thought would be considered practical to the point of being uncaring. Anyone who operated on this set of ethics would be seen as cold, despite the happiness that person was trying to provide.

I think utilitarianism, though, does hold merit as a practical approach to dealing with a large-scale population. It's the government's job (or supposed to be, anyways) to meet the needs of the people. It can't possibly please everyone, so it merely tries to placate the biggest number. And when you think about it, the most successful politicians generally tend to be the ones that can please the most people; they'd rather please everyone somewhat than make one, small segment really happy.

Haha, that article was a very amusing read. Thanks for sharing that with us.

Do we actually create consciousness by cloning? I kind of feel that nature is still largely the one responsible. We throw in all the ingredients and add a little push, but DNA, regulator proteins, and biological mechanisms do all the work. I do think we'll be able to create consciousness someday, though. It won't be for a while; the human brain is still a mystery in a lot of ways. Wow, when I think about it, this is actually a rather hefty question...

The problem though is the same problem found in capitalism. Ideally there is supply and demand. Only in all the courses I have taken. Rarely do they seem to really focus on the fact that a large part of demand is "created" and may actually be totally impractical. Try walking through a store some time and just taking note of all the useless junk that really no one would need or want. Stuff that 99% of all people buy, use once, and it sits in an out of the way place for the rest of it's existence. A waste of resources, manpower, space, and time. Found to be interesting because some commercial touted it's 1 totally improbable use and made people think it might be worth something. To the contrary of what is truely reality.

The same is true with governence. How do you factor in miss information and people being "given" desires that probably shouldn't be met or accepted. For example. Look at how differently everything would have gone in Iraq had for instance much less focus been given on touting unreasonable fears. If for example we had leadership that gave people confidence in their safety rather then cowering in some sort of irrational abject terror. It would be nice if government on a national level could be nearly completely done away with. Most things should be done at the state or local level. Or maybe that at the national level they are only allowed to do their job and not to speak or even have an publically declared oppinion.

This post was last modified: 03-03-2008 02:50 PM by Skorian.

Good point cloning doesn't create consciousness we are just giving nature a kick start. But another way to see it would be to say we've created two where there "should have been" one and isn't that creating consciousness in a way? I put should have been in quotes because who really knows if there is a way things ought to be in the first place and THAT is a tough question...

Since I know nothing about metaphysics (yet) I'll dodge that question and bring up:

Heinz's Dilemma

In Europe, a woman was near death from cancer. One drug might save her, a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The druggist was charging $2000, ten times what the drug had cost him to make. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could get together only about half of what it should cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or to let him pay later. But the druggist said no. The husband got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife. Should the husband have done that? Why?

I would have done the same thing, if someone I loved was dying and I knew of a cure I would stop at nothing to get it, stealing or what ever it takes. But emotions aside, would you consider his actions to be moral? I know Kant would say it isn't and utilitarianism would also come to the conclusion that it wasn't if you ultimately considered everyone's happiness(but that's debatable)...But doesn't that seen wrong to anyone else? Don't you think it should be acceptable to go against your moral beliefs for extreme circumstances or would you consider it a sign of weakness of character to not be able to adhere to your beliefs when you see the consequences?

What do you all think of what Heinz did? What would you all do if you were him?

I was just reading this... Seems to me this article is actually just a cute advertisement. I don't know of any true AI being developed that isn't just software that was written to do a particular task. At least I haven't heard of any actual AI. I mean if they had that then the mar's rovers would have that and I am pretty sure they are just a software package that does what it was written to do and nothing else. I guess I would assume your not serious. I mean a $200 robot... There would be AI software packages for stuff on the computer first.

This post was last modified: 03-03-2008 02:42 PM by Skorian.

Yes, yes I was kidding, AI nowadays still isn't capable of doing much "thinking" just basic choices involving colors and such, at least from what I know which may be wrong

Here is how I would look at it. First you have to assume he is the only one nearby with this cure. Then you have to wonder how well to do this druggest is. Obviously he is already criminal/evil. If he is already taking more then his fair share from society and has far more then he needs, then steal away. Since really he is already a thief himself, only his thievery is legal and yours won't be. Going to jail is a small price to pay for saving the life of a loved one. It's not really a moral issue. It's sort of like defending yourself from someone who is trying to kill you. Only in this case this druggest is robbing/attacking society. It basically comes down to a cartel or mob of well to do individuals getting into a high possition and then setting the laws to protect them from the greater majority of society. In a perfect world those people could just get together and take and equally distribute what really was taken from them in the first place. The tiny minority of uber wealthy wouldn't be able to do diddly if people could geninely work together. Since it is the people and not they that run everything.

In a sane world people like Bill Gates would have the majority of his wealth taken away from him and evenly distributed to the general population. It is just insane that people are allowed to have so much when others are outright starving. What the hell do they need it for? To burn in case they get cold?

We all live such short lives that really it makes no sense to really believe we truely own anything. Really it is just borrowing and everything is owned by society as a whole. Since everything comes from society in the first place. No one can gain anything without the rest of society being there and really when you get far more then your neighbor it's often because you were more exploitive of others. Really the only moral argument is what is of benifit to society and what is not. That which if not of benifit is immoral and that which is isn't immoral. The problem though is who decides which is which.

This post was last modified: 03-04-2008 09:59 PM by Skorian.

Quote of the day: (I know it maybe offensive to some, but this is how i feel in general)

Life is like a box of shit. No matter which one you open, it's still shit.