The Philosophy Corner

[Larsen B]

You know what? I just realized (with the help of wikipedia) that, when I was talking about moral relativism, I was actually discussing moral pluralism. LOL... my mistake.

I think you'll have to explain moral pluralism because i don't really understand that. I sort of do - like there are many options of right and wrong and none is really better than another - it takes a radical diversion reach a preference.

 

[blak000]

Well.. again, I got my information from Wikipedia...

The way I understand it: moral relativism states the absence of absolute moral truths. It argues that certain moral values work primarily created for a specific region. A moral value can be upheld in multiple areas, but not because it is necessarily a universal truth; it merely works for that particular society. The concepts of "good" and "bad" are merely human constructs used to uphold social harmony.

Moral pluralism is what I was arguing for: the idea that there are different value systems that are not recognized as necessarily wrong, but merely different. Thus, a person who adheres to moral pluralism tolerates beliefs that differ from his own, because he respects the culture that spawned in. However, this tolerance has its limits, and a moral pluralist may have trouble accepting a value system that is too far removed from his or her own.

I suppose moral pluralism is more a stance or attitude to a difference in value systems. Moral relativism and moral absolutism question the existence of universally applicable truths. They act as counter-arguments to one another. In the Wikipedia entry that I read, they also make a point to mention that moral pluralism and relativism are not synonymous with one another. They deal with similar topics, but focus on different aspects of it. A person who believes in moral relativism can choose to practice moral pluralism, but this doesn't have to be the case; it just depends on how open-minded the moral relativist chooses to be.

Indigo, I like what you said about Bundy being a return of a more primitive form of human nature. That's an interesting way of looking at it, and I must say I haven't really thought of it like that before. It's definitely something worth pondering on. However, is a relativist viewpoint necessary to link Bundy's actions to that of animals? Aren't most animals free from the reins of moral judgment, since they act on instinct and survival?

 

[NeverMore]

First off, let me say: I think almost every philosopher's works are difficult to understand or get through. They operate on such a logical level, that it's almost like reading a textbook on some high-level mathematical concept. Sometimes, I'll read a work, and then have to go on the internet to find a summarized version just to find out what I just read, lol!

Yes

As I mentioned before: I think moral truths are easy to apply in the general case; it's in the specific situations that I'm more hesitant to agree with them.

For example, number 1 sounds like a great rule to follow. It's basically a rephrasing of the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have done unto you." I try to base my actions around this principle, but I feel it's easy for me because I'm not in any stressful or highly intense situations that push me to do otherwise. Most people I meet are nice to me, so it's not too much for me to do the same, but let's consider a special case...

Now, I think stealing is generally wrong. You're taking the honest living of another man for your own benefit. However, what if you were a victim of a financial "perfect storm"? You were a hard-working, honest man who considered the welfare of others, but now you suddenly find your entire family living on the street. Let's also say that much of your misfortune was the result of a powerful and wealthy, yet evil, man's machinations. Your family, including your two infant children, are dying right in front of your eyes. One day, you suddenly find yourself in a situation where you can swipe a bit of food from the evil man's kitchen. Doing so will have no effect on the evil man, since he's rich, and he probably won't even know you did it or that anything was stolen from him. If you live according to Rule 1, you don't, because you don't believe in stealing, and you wouldn't want anyone stealing from you. Instead, you simply return to your family and watch them die.

If I heard this story, and was asked what the poor man should do... I'd say "Go steal from that *******." I think there are a few out there who would agree with me. Is the stealing justified? No, of course not. The man is still committing a wrongful act (if you consider stealing wrongful, which I hope you do ); however, is it a greater wrong to steal or to let someone die? Though the answer to this question may seem obvious to some, other comparisons can be made where it would be a much harder call. In the situation I described, though, I think many of us would probably be lenient on the poor man, given the circumstances.

I think Kant would argue that his principle isn't like the golden rule because he thinks wants and actions have nothing to do with morality, the consequences of an action don't matter only as long as they were done because it was the right thing to. So if you are treating others the way you want to be treated, your doing things out of self interest and Kant would say that is immoral, that being said I don't necessarily like Kant

But the example you gave, it could be considered moral to take the food and still be applicable to Kant's first truth, it all depends how you form the maxim. You assumed the maxim was "stealing" and since if everyone stole the world couldn't exist, therefore it's immoral to take the food, but what if you made the maxim "stealing food from the extremely wealthy to save your starving children"? Then you could imagine a world where the individuals with starving children stole food from the extremely wealthy who don't even notice, that world is plausible, and no worse then the current world therefore stealing the food IS moral...So Kant made this rule extremely flexible, and I can't think of any situations where it wouldn't work still...

Ok but, simply put, when one group with one set of laws is judged against another group with another set of laws on the same issue, which set of laws is correct? And maybe it is because there are no universal moral truths that people are able to stand up and say something is wrong.

Wait....What? Wouldn't there have to be a standard for them to say something is wrong?

Aside from morals, if everyone thought it a universal truth that our solar system is our universe, would this really be that healthy? They may be right, but holding onto this perceived universal truth is preventing them from seeing a different alternative.

In order to be a universal truth it would have to be true, so those people would be wrong. Now the danger lies in assuming something we know already to be absolutely true, if we classify something as an absolute truth and we are wrong, then it's not really a truth at all now is it...So that makes the process of finding moral truths that much harder, even if you think you have it, is there really any time when you can ever say, yes it is absolutely true and end all further development towards that idea? What if your wrong?

Now if there are no universal moral truths, this does not mean that a species can’t come together and generally agree on certain principles. A species may still ultimately realize that there are no universal truths in their moral or legal system, but for whatever reason, have found a stable path. A path that has been forged by the environment they inhabit – a different environment would forge a different path. Morals come together, evolve and work, just in the same way that matter comes together, evolves and works. And this only happens in the right combinations or circumstances.

This may be the case, and this may be exactly how modern laws were formed, they evolved over the years. BUT in order for a society to exist, they have to hold some common moral values in order for society to actually exist, now is that to say that these common values that are required for society to exist universal? Maybe... For example murder must be disapproved of, if it weren't then individuals wouldn't risk living together in large groups, they would be solitary, maybe forming small groups they could trust to not kill them at best, but nothing that would allow for a society to exist, so all societies must disapprove of murder. So regardless of the environment that must be true for all, right?

So it seems we do sort of agree. But i feel a common moral truth is the result of process and conditions, and i hesitate to use the word universal because we now recognise the possibility of many or an infinite number of universes, each potentially with it’s own set of cosmological laws. So perhaps you would like to use the word multiversal moral truth? I don’t think you would be so confident with this idea though.

Now that's a tough one

If the same principles of nature, such as evolution and physics applied to every other universe then I could probably argue that it wouldn't make a difference which universe you were in, life and societies would exist in such a similar manner that there would still be truths that apply to all of us... But if different laws of physics and biology are found in other universes...Then hell, it's anyones guess as to what the heck would happen, I don't think we can comprehend those implications at least I can't at the moment

Of course the idea of eternal morals is a human concept, we would be in a better position to debate this if we were in contact with intelligent cultures from other planets. Do they have morals? If so, what kind? And so on. Our morals may be similar, or they may be completely different.

You don't know if eternal moral truths are a human concept, maybe on planet Gorbalax they are sitting discussing the same exact thing

Perhaps what we can say is that the framework for morality is there in the universe. In the same way that the framework for stars and planets. But the question is why is it this way, and why does it seem so right? It seems so right that we cannot comprehend other (theoretical) universes having a better system. Ours is just the best and only way we know. At this point my head explodes because i am physically unable to comprehend a different reality to our own 3 dimensional one.

*tapes indigo's head back together*

Well what if we consider cultural relativism and instead call it universal cultural relativism, and instead of comparing societies on Earth, we compare two different universes and their views, wouldn't we come to the same conclusion that cultural relativism did?

 

[blak000]

I think Kant would argue that his principle isn't like the golden rule because he thinks wants and actions have nothing to do with morality, the consequences of an action don't matter only as long as they were done because it was the right thing to. So if you are treating others the way you want to be treated, your doing things out of self interest and Kant would say that is immoral, that being said I don't necessarily like Kant

But the example you gave, it could be considered moral to take the food and still be applicable to Kant's first truth, it all depends how you form the maxim. You assumed the maxim was "stealing" and since if everyone stole the world couldn't exist, therefore it's immoral to take the food, but what if you made the maxim "stealing food from the extremely wealthy to save your starving children"? Then you could imagine a world where the individuals with starving children stole food from the extremely wealthy who don't even notice, that world is plausible, and no worse then the current world therefore stealing the food IS moral...So Kant made this rule extremely flexible, and I can't think of any situations where it wouldn't work still...

Haha... I have to admit, you make a very strong argument. I suppose the Golden Rule was an oversimplification (and an incorrect one, at that) of Kant's maxim. I must admit, when considering it the way you've described, it does neatly sidestep a lot of the problems I mentioned concerning moral absolutism.

Hmm.. now I'm going to be spending all day trying to think of exceptions to this rule, lol.

 

[Larsen B]

In the Wikipedia entry that I read, they also make a point to mention that moral pluralism and relativism are not synonymous with one another. They deal with similar topics, but focus on different aspects of it. A person who believes in moral relativism can choose to practice moral pluralism, but this doesn't have to be the case; it just depends on how open-minded the moral relativist chooses to be.

But a moral absolutist can not entertain moral pluralism? Because things are either right or they are wrong, there is no bending. Whereas a moral relativist has already bent by recognising that things are not always concrete.

Do you think moral absolutism the preserve of the ignorant?

Indigo, I like what you said about Bundy being a return of a more primitive form of human nature. That's an interesting way of looking at it, and I must say I haven't really thought of it like that before. It's definitely something worth pondering on. However, is a relativist viewpoint necessary to link Bundy's actions to that of animals? Aren't most animals free from the reigns of moral judgment, since they act on instinct and survival?

Yeah Bundy could be an example of a more primitive time in human history, one that has managed to sneak into modern society. Humans certainly are a violent species, but we have come to temper our baser instincts towards others with a moral framework. Strangely though, powerful leaders seem to be able to watch the killing of tens of thousands of civilians as though they were nothing. Anyway, killing is in our blood-some more than others-and add to that a terrible upbringing and you have the recipe for disaster.

I would say a relativist or moral pluralist(i'm not sure now lol) viewpoint is necessary in order to understand that most animals are free from the reigns of moral judgement. You can apply this understanding to argument i made about Ted Bundy can't you? If it were proved that he was influenced by his primitive past. Of course we are heading into complex legal issues now.

 

[blak000]

Hmm.. I was thinking, NeverMore: even though Kant's rule could be applied universally with good result, the execution of this rule would be completely different, depending on the individual. It would essentially be a universal maxim that results in a morally relativistic world. Can it be considered a universal moral truth (rule), or a moral guide?

A moral truth, in my opinion, would be something that details or implies the nature or inherent quality of an action. A moral guide, however, dictates how we perform said actions. Just my thoughts... but what do you think?

 

[NeverMore]

Hmm.. I was thinking, NeverMore: even though Kant's rule could be applied universally with good result, the execution of this rule would be completely different, depending on the individual. It would essentially be a universal truth that results in a morally relativistic world. Can it be considered a universal moral truth (rule), or a moral guide?

I guess it's more of a moral guide your right, something you can refer to to determine if something is moral not necessarily what is moral, as we just saw, you used the rule and came to the conclusion that your action was immoral, I used the rule and found it was moral, so at that level it is based on the individual and even dependent of how much detail you put into forming the maxim. There has to be a limit to how detailed you can be, you can't for instance form the maxim: "stealing from rich evil people to save your starving children" because it contains an opinion, you think he's evil....It would only make sense to form the maxims using only facts and actions I guess...**** YOU KANT and your rule I will find an exception just to prove it isn't a reliable guide

 

[blak000]

But a moral absolutist can not entertain moral pluralism? Because things are either right or they are wrong, there is no bending. Whereas a moral relativist has already bent by recognising that things are not always concrete.

Do you think moral absolutism the preserve of the ignorant?

Oh no, I don't mean to presume anything about moral absolutism. I'm sorry if you took it that way. However, I do feel that pluralism would be less likely to be undertaken by an absolutist, and more by a relativist.

If a moral absolutist deemed "ignoring or tolerating an evil act" to be evil in itself, then pluralism would be very hard to maintain. There are many actions that are considered neutral (merely difference in lifestyle), but there are also actions that some perceive to be evil that others consider neutral (abortion). If a moral absolutist sees this, and considers it to be inherently evil (killing a life), then I would imagine that it would be against his/her nature to simply walk away (assuming ignoring evil is considered evil in itself).

And is ignoring evil considered evil? Would we consider someone evil if he/she ignored or walked away from a person being raped, murdered, or mugged? Maybe just weak? It's up to the individual to decide.

 

[evanescencefan91]

I'm sorry I notice this stuff is way over my head, I'm like the little kid that wants to do all the smart grown up things. But I have been interested in philosphy for a long time. So i like reading your guys posts, you guys are all really smart.

I guess it's more of a moral guide your right, something you can refer to to determine if something is moral not necessarily what is moral, as we just saw, you used the rule and came to the conclusion that your action was immoral, I used the rule and found it was moral, so at that level it is based on the individual and even dependent of how much detail you put into forming the maxim. There has to be a limit to how detailed you can be, you can't for instance form the maxim: "stealing from rich evil people to save your starving children" because it contains an opinion, you think he's evil....It would only make sense to form the maxims using only facts and actions I guess...**** YOU KANT and your rule I will find an exception just to prove it isn't a reliable guide

thats a good point nevermore. Alot of times wheither a choice is morally bad or good, will depend on the information on the situation we have.
ex middle eastern conflicts we may have had faulty information on WMDs. Considering that saddam had weapons of mass destruction and he was planning to attack the us and other nations then It would have been morally good to go into Iraq, correct? But we had inaccurate reports. So instead we shipped soilders and caused the deaths of inocent bystanders and destabilized a complete country. for no reason. That is morally bad, no?

what I'm trying to say that when we are making a descion about the right thing to do, it isn't an answer, that is automatic andfound in our genes. Our pecieved notions of ethics is influenced by others, and the current knowledge of the situation at hand.

 

[Larsen B]

Oh no, I don't mean to presume anything about moral absolutism. I'm sorry if you took it that way. However, I do feel that pluralism would be less likely to be undertaken by an absolutist, and more by a relativist.

No i didn't take it that way. I tend to agree with you that pluralism is less likely to be undertaken by an absolutist, and more by the relativist.

I wondered if absolutism is really another word for ignorance. It makes me chuckle when i hear people on radio talk shows give their opinions with breathtaking confidence - purely because it is something they themselves have had experience with, as though this makes their opinion infallible.

If a moral absolutist deemed "ignoring or tolerating an evil act" to be evil in itself, then pluralism would be very hard to maintain. There are many actions that are considered neutral (merely difference in lifestyle), but there are also actions that some perceive to be evil that others consider neutral (abortion). If a moral absolutist sees this, and considers it to be inherently evil (killing a life), then I would imagine that it would be against his/her nature to simply walk away (assuming ignoring evil is considered evil in itself).

And is ignoring evil considered evil? Would we consider someone evil if he/she ignored or walked away from a person being raped, murdered, or mugged? Maybe just weak? It's up to the individual to decide.

This is a good point. Do you think it implies that any universal moral truth must be bendable and adaptive to circumstance? Would this make it less of a universal truth, or is the universality something separate from what happens on the ground? Because surely we understand the reasons why a person would not physically help a victim of rape or mugging - they are probably scared and fearful of being hurt themselves. I

Completely ignoring a victim of, say, mugging - not even calling the police - is another matter. But some people do this, maybe more than we realise. Some people would say (usually the religious) that this is due to the breakdown of morals in our societies. If this is true perhaps it shows how weak morals are in the universe - if they can be so easily abandoned. We could look to other reasons why people ignore crime: societies that foster selfish attitudes, or create an atmosphere of hopelessness, disconnection, disaffection, resentment and cynicism. To me, it seems that factors like these are extremely powerful and are capable of pushing morals aside.

However most humans do have a conscience, and so feel guilty about not doing anything. I say most because some don't - i'm talking about people who exhibit psychopathic tendencies - whether murderer or businessman. I think i read that such tendencies of varying degrees can affect anyone. And people like this aren't so much evil but, as is the title to Nietzsche's book, "human, all too human". So again we have the question, are the people without conscience representing a universe with or without universal moral truths?

 

[Larsen B]

I'm sorry I notice this stuff is way over my head, I'm like the little kid that wants to do all the smart grown up things. But I have been interested in philosphy for a long time. So i like reading your guys posts, you guys are all really smart.

I guess it's more of a moral guide your right, something you can refer to to determine if something is moral not necessarily what is moral, as we just saw, you used the rule and came to the conclusion that your action was immoral, I used the rule and found it was moral, so at that level it is based on the individual and even dependent of how much detail you put into forming the maxim. There has to be a limit to how detailed you can be, you can't for instance form the maxim: "stealing from rich evil people to save your starving children" because it contains an opinion, you think he's evil....It would only make sense to form the maxims using only facts and actions I guess...**** YOU KANT and your rule I will find an exception just to prove it isn't a reliable guide

thats a good point nevermore. Alot of times wheither a choice is morally bad or good, will depend on the information on the situation we have.
ex middle eastern conflicts we may have had faulty information on WMDs. Considering that saddam had weapons of mass destruction and he was planning to attack the us and other nations then It would have been morally good to go into Iraq, correct? But we had inaccurate reports. So instead we shipped soilders and caused the deaths of inocent bystanders and destabilized a complete country. for no reason. That is morally bad, no?

what I'm trying to say that when we are making a descion about the right thing to do, it isn't an answer, that is automatic andfound in our genes. Our pecieved notions of ethics is influenced by others, and the current knowledge of the situation at hand.

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.

 

[Skorian]

I'm sorry I notice this stuff is way over my head, I'm like the little kid that wants to do all the smart grown up things. But I have been interested in philosphy for a long time. So i like reading your guys posts, you guys are all really smart.

I guess it's more of a moral guide your right, something you can refer to to determine if something is moral not necessarily what is moral, as we just saw, you used the rule and came to the conclusion that your action was immoral, I used the rule and found it was moral, so at that level it is based on the individual and even dependent of how much detail you put into forming the maxim. There has to be a limit to how detailed you can be, you can't for instance form the maxim: "stealing from rich evil people to save your starving children" because it contains an opinion, you think he's evil....It would only make sense to form the maxims using only facts and actions I guess...**** YOU KANT and your rule I will find an exception just to prove it isn't a reliable guide

thats a good point nevermore. Alot of times wheither a choice is morally bad or good, will depend on the information on the situation we have.
ex middle eastern conflicts we may have had faulty information on WMDs. Considering that saddam had weapons of mass destruction and he was planning to attack the us and other nations then It would have been morally good to go into Iraq, correct? But we had inaccurate reports. So instead we shipped soilders and caused the deaths of inocent bystanders and destabilized a complete country. for no reason. That is morally bad, no?

what I'm trying to say that when we are making a descion about the right thing to do, it isn't an answer, that is automatic andfound in our genes. Our pecieved notions of ethics is influenced by others, and the current knowledge of the situation at hand.

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.

 

[NeverMore]

thats a good point nevermore. Alot of times wheither a choice is morally bad or good, will depend on the information on the situation we have.
ex middle eastern conflicts we may have had faulty information on WMDs. Considering that saddam had weapons of mass destruction and he was planning to attack the us and other nations then It would have been morally good to go into Iraq, correct? But we had inaccurate reports. So instead we shipped soilders and caused the deaths of inocent bystanders and destabilized a complete country. for no reason. That is morally bad, no?

what I'm trying to say that when we are making a descion about the right thing to do, it isn't an answer, that is automatic andfound in our genes. Our pecieved notions of ethics is influenced by others, and the current knowledge of the situation at hand.

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

 

[blak000]

"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?

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.

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?

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

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...

 

[Skorian]

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.

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.

 

[NeverMore]

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...

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?

 

[Skorian]

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?

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

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.

 

[NeverMore]

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

 

[Skorian]

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...

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?

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.

 

[SadRabbit]

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 honeysuckle. No matter which one you open, it's still honeysuckle.