Pepin

There is no answer included, it is a methodology of judging relationships which holds that you ought to judge all personal relationships with similar criteria. "They will come through" is not an objection to what I said, rather it could be used to say that if this is a value you have for your family members that you ought to have the same criteria for your friends.

I really have a difficult time relating to this argument. I've always had the FDR mentality in regard to family, so I can't really understand these sorts of responses because to me they sound arbitrary and silly. Fundamentally, the relationship between you and your family members is no different than any other relationship, therefore they ought to be judged in the same manner. A question that is important to ask is: "would I choose to associate with this person if they weren't in my family?". If the answer is no, then it is important to be curious and ask: "why am involving myself in this relationship?". There is a common theme with a lot of my friends having racist grandparents. I believe the comedian Lois C.K has a sketch on this which I've heard is quite accurate. I tend to be a little confused by this, so I will ask them "why would you associate with these people just because they are family? In any other sphere, this would be a deal breaker", which they'll agree with and say reveal a sort of paralysis in cutting ties with them. The primary source of this from what I can gather (though it isn't mentioned) is the relationship to other family members, not the relation to grandparents. Refusing or ceasing to see them is likely to bring up a lot of conflict with other members of the family, primarily the parents. I can hypothesize some reasons for why I think this is.

I am having some difficulty understanding the point of contention here. I'd recommend addressing the "UPB in a Nutshell" section as most of the book is an extrapolation from this. 1. Reality is objective and consistent. 2. “Logic” is the set of objective and consistent rules derived from the consistency of reality. 3. Those theories that conform to logic are called “valid.” 4. Those theories that are confirmed by empirical testing are called “accurate.” 5. Those theories that are both valid and accurate are called “true.” 6. “Preferences” are required for life, thought, language and debating. 7. Debating requires that both parties hold “truth” to be both objective and universally preferable. 8. Thus the very act of debating contains an acceptance of universally preferable behaviour (UPB). 9. Theories regarding UPB must pass the tests of logical consistency and empirical verification. 10. The subset of UPB that examines enforceable behaviour is called “morality.” 11. As a subset of UPB, no moral theory can be considered true if it is illogical or unsupported by empirical evidence. 12. Moral theories that are supported by logic and evidence are true. All other moral theories are false.

My suggestion is to not consider the state in these choices.

It is the difference between comedy and tragedy; the difference between voluntary and involuntary; the difference between deserved and undeserved.

Personally Morse, I wouldn't pay much attention to those previous two comments unless the can be sufficiently substantiated within the context you posted. To me, they feel pretty disconnected from the content of your post. Perhaps I say this because I have confidence in my block of text (not quite a wall), mostly in regard to touch being something that is completely normal and important in human communication which I feel I could support with psychological and sociological science. The interpretation I get from your first post is more one of social confusion combined with a pondering of the ethics of non-harmful touch. If I am right about this, well it is something I can understand because I am continually confused by the untold rules of social interaction that everyone but me seems to know. If I am wrong about this, then we can say that I am projecting.

You have to take into account your values and what you want to do with your life to ask that question. As pointed out by others, if you are studying for a career in engineering, you are deferring current income for future income. If you are training to become a professional in an area that doesn't pay well, then you are deferring money in the present for a better work life in the future. Perhaps you prefer learning over a greater income. It may be my personality, but I love learning and go through a numerous amount of informational content that has no real practicality in my life. I find the vast majority of subjects to be so interesting. I'd prefer a lower income and more or an opportunity to learn than a higher income and less of an opportunity to learn.

Sounds pretty interesting. Anyways, I always assume that my preconceptions about the environment in any country is wrong, especially with Israel and Iran.

I understand what you saying and don't think you are wrong in how you are approaching it, but I would say that the first question to ask is if a concept can apply to the object in question, and if it does not to point out the error in the question. For instance, asking "what color is the number two" is an invalid question because the concept "color" does not apply to numbers. If someone asks you what color an atom is, you wouldn't say that it has no color, but rather you'd explain what color is on the physical level and why the concept doesn't apply to atoms. If you are to asking what the opinion of the average electron is of the weather, you wouldn't say that the electron has no opinion on the weather of no opinion in general, but you'd say that the question doesn't make sense as electrons are not capable of having opinions. If you are inquiring about a particular belief of a cabbage, you'd disregard the particular belief and say that cabbages are incapable of belief. Sorry if this is it sounds like I am being annoyingly technical, but I feel like it is a good distinction to make. There is a difference in asking about a normal adult human's belief in a concept when compared to a block of wood. Saying that a the human does not believe in evolution is not equivalent to saying that a block of wood does not believe in evolution, as one the concept of belief can apply to, and the other not at all. To provide a programming analogy, it is like requesting information on a property the class does not have. The return value is not "0", but it is rather something like "cannot access property of a null object reference".

The question is faulty because it is asserting that belief of a deity is something that babies, cabbages, and dog can have. Cabbages cannot have any belief as they lack an ability to think, therefore the question cannot apply to them. Dogs have a capacity for belief, such as after the sound of a ringing bell I will receive food from my caretaker, yet the level of belief can only take on a very limited complexity due to the structure of their neural networks. With babies, even at a verbal story telling age, though the baby/child might be able to give a response that would indicate a belief in a deity, there is no real understanding of the content and would be more akin to a talking parrot. An interesting thought experiment is to think about how you'd convey the idea of a deity without words to someone without any prior preconception... It is a little similar to asking how you'd convey that reality doesn't exist without the use of words. Normal humans that are raised well and past some phase in brain development and have no prior conception of a deity would be capable of assessing the claim of a deity, and therefore could have a belief on the matter. I wouldn't say that the assessing of the claim would be needed to consider them an atheist in the same way that the default state in anything is disbelief. To make that point a little clearer: you are assumed to not believe in a religion you've never heard of; you are assumed to not believe in some animal you have no knowledge of; you are assumed to not believe in mythic beast you've never heard of. It isn't that you might not believe in it upon being informed of it and given evidence, it is just that you couldn't say to have believed in it before learning about it. Given how anti-empirical and contradictory the concept of a deity is, I have a difficult time imagining how someone would come up with it as a serious thought. I am pretty sure the concept would come up with history studies, but in the same way that the idea of the flat earth comes up in science. I can perhaps see someone asking "who created the universe?".

Welcome to the forum. How do you find Israel? Assuming that you are an atheist, how does that mesh with the culture there?

I think this is a positive direction because the more aware people are of their projections, the less they will want to project. Though this is a guess, I would say that right now we are at the metaphorical stage where "you can think of government as X" with the less educated and "the government is a projection early childhood" in more educated circles. At the current time, people are more likely to see it as an interesting observation that has a lot of positive benefits with no real negative impact, but as time progresses I would put forward that people are more and more likely to attribute the negative properties to it. I find blatant propaganda easier to point out to people because it doesn't sound so abstract when you talk about it. I get the impression that it sounds like you're making a stretch of an argument when talking about subtle forms of propaganda.

It isn't immoral because the fighting is voluntary. It still might not be considered good, in the same way that prostitution is not considered good. A large percentage of these people are recreating previous trauma in their life and enabling this is quite sketchy. Stefan has a few videos out about the subject. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRuBO_VbGFI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSUyEgS48rs Personally, I lean more towards Stefan's arguments, but it isn't something that I have very strong thoughts or feelings about either way, likely because it isn't something that I ever think about.

Uh, of course I posted in the wrong duplicate topic. I am putting my post here with the assumption that the other duplicate thread will be deleted. Anyway... You don't interpret it as violence, and others do not either. It is not intended to cause harm and unless something goes terribly wrong: it doesn't. Violent acts require the intent to do harm against the other person's will, just as murder requires the intent to kill someone against their will. If the other person wants to be killed, it is assisted suicide. If the other person wants to be spanked, it is a kinky sex act. To bring UPB into it, the act of hitting is not important to the ethics of the situation, rather the level of voluntarism is, in that the more force needed: the worse the act is. Cutting someone's throat is good for a doctor performing an emergency tracheotomy, bad for serial killer. Even if this was something you did not prefer, it would be really be a matter of ethics, especially because the person is very likely to leave you alone upon being made aware of your preference. I'd put it more in the category of having to turn down someone who asked you out who you really don't want to date. It is" uncomfortable; awkward; not something you wanted to have happen or to have to respond to, yet it is not aggression in any sense of the word, and all acts involved are peaceful. Instead of using the term "hit", "light playful touch" would be accurate. Bodily contact between people can be considered a method of communication, though one that has far less emphasis and use than it did in the past. Ideally, the person's sense of what is appropriate in so far as touch is communicated through body language. Personally, I think it is important to not be too sensitive to unwanted bodily contact, but to be sensitive to people's wishes and to be aware of the the "don't touch me" messages people put out. If you watch people who are having a flirty interaction, there is a bit of improvised dance that occurs where the sense of appropriate touch is established without words. Boundary lines are crossed, like the man might put his hands a little too close to her butt, but a message gets sent out not to do that and it doesn't happen again and they usually continue having a flirty interaction. This is a topic that I have certainly modified my beliefs on because I used to be of the mind that you should always ask before touching someone in any way. This likely came out of my desire to not have anybody touch me. I wouldn't have considered it aggression, but rather quite rude behavior. I hope that was a good response. It is a bit difficult to respond to because in my mind it is obviously not violence, but articulating why is difficult.

-Response moved to the more active duplicate thread here.-

I think I might call in next week.

Irrationality. I am pretty sure that the rebels are murdering are framing the government for the vast majority of the civilian murders. The impression I have gotten from the Syrian government is that they quite understand that the Western powers are looking for any excuse to murder and displace a good portion of the population. More so, the threat to these politicians is having Western powers taking the rebel side and being overthrown and murdered. What happened in Libya is something the politicians of Syria are likely quite aware of. The rebels are likely partially motivated by their own cause, and partially by Western powers and perhaps a few other governments. Personally, I don't think it is worth it to follow because without talking tons of sources into consideration, and even then there is no advantage to being informed because you are going to be going against the murderous blood impulse of politicians, news anchors, and portions of the population. To bring it back to the first word, irrationality cannot be understood, which is why simplistic MSM narratives are so attractive to unintelligent people.

There are aesthetically unpreferable behavior, which: cussing at someone, being late, being a free-rider, and so on would be included in. These are a different in the range of solutions as violence is not an option. Rather, these issues would need to be penalized or solved through voluntary means. If you receive poor service at a restaurant, you don't have the ability to take a twenty from the cash drawer, but you do have the ability to not go again and to warn others. If your friend does something extremely rude and makes you really mad, you don't have the ability to break their legs, but you do have the ability to stop seeing them and to tell others what he/she did. The main aspect to keep in mind about ethical theories that permit violence in response is that they must be air tight in the logic reasoning. It isn't a solution that can be casually asserted. On the other hand, any sort of problem that can solved through voluntarism does extend any ability you don't already have. Also, any ethical theory does not tell you how to act in a situation. If someone mugs you and you are fully capable of fighting back, there is no ethical positive obligation that you ought to fight back or take X action, it only claims that you have the ability to use violence in response. There might be arguments as to the best action to take to achieve a desired result, but that is not ethics. It might help to think about aesthetic ethics in terms of relationship advice. It is non-binding, somewhat non-objective, and circumstantial. With that said, we would still say that there is good and bad ways of dealing with the problem. We would also say that there is objectively nonsensical solutions to the problem. For instance: if your husband is an alcoholic, it bothers you to an extreme state, yet you don't bring it up to him and you buy him beer and will bring it to him during the game. Bad advice would be to say to keep doing what you are doing. Good advice would be practice talking about it, and then when he is sober to bring it up and talk about it. Nonsensical advice would be to say to perform a satanic ritual to Paper Mario while jumping out of an airplane. Verbal matters like this is a little more difficult because there is a lot more grey. There is one end of the spectrum where it is clearly aggression such as the case of verbal abuse, and another end of the spectrum where it might affect you, but where it could really only be categorized as rude. There is also a subjective component to language which complicates matters even more. I feel as though you'd agree with this, I just want to point out that responding with force in all cases likely wouldn't be considered just.

How does an animal free will? What is your definition of the concept? Also, how does the concept of ownership apply in the sense of slavery, as opposed to the sense of taking care of child? There are certainly specific examples that could be provided where the comparison could be rather effective such as the use of oxen and horses, but I am more interested in the case of the common house cat. What would a voluntary relationship consistent of with animals? Sorry if these questions are annoying, but I'm interested in the reasoning.

Can you expand upon this? I don't quite understand the connection to slavery.

Definitions are very important in philosophy and science in order to avoid subjectivity and misunderstanding. In some cases, arguing about the definition of a word is a little pointless when the audience knows what you mean or the context is well enough established, but in general: defining terms is the first place to start.

George Bush and Obama's exacerbation of his policies reminds me a lot of the relation of Hoover and FDR. Tangents aside, I feel like I am part of the group that understands the earth is round before it was widely accepted. Though I find it more likely the the communistic anarchism is what people are most interested in, which I really fail to understand. Communism and socialism in general have just always just been arguments that I have a difficult time grasping. I feel like I can do a decent job making the case for it, but I really don't understand it. Since that is a secant, I shall stop.

The opposite of an event occurring is the event not occurring. If we are measuring an amount of polarized photons that make it through a slit, the opposite of a photon making it through the slit is a photon not making it through the slit. Actions are the same in that the opposite of an action occurring is the action not occurring. The opposite of me doing the chicken dance is me not doing the chicken dance, not some action that is the opposite of the chicken dance. It logically equivalent to say that the opposite of doing a chicken dance is any action other than a chicken dance, but that is only saying that no action will register an occurrence for the chicken dance occurring except for the chicken dance. If the action has some sort of binary description to it, the opposite would not affect the action and would affect the descriptor. If an object is moving and it is in the direction that is the opposite of up, then is moving down. If you measure the spin of an electron to be the opposite of down, then the spin is up. If voluntary is the opposite of involuntary, and an interaction is the opposite of involuntary, then it is a voluntary interaction. UPB does not judge theories based on actions because actions are contextual. Cutting someone's neck is likely bad in most circumstances, but can be very good in cases of emergency tracheotomies. Because of this, the action is not judged by itself, but rather the preferences of the parities involved. You'd call a serial murderer bad because they they were slashing people's throats against the victim's preference, and a doctor good because the patient preferred to have their throat slashed. In much the same way, the action of sexual intercourse cannot be said to be good or bad. Rather the preference is the decider on the morality. Involuntary sex is the opposite of voluntary sex, which is just saying that rape is the opposite of love making. If it proven that involuntary interactions are immoral, then rape is immoral. Hope this helps and provides some clarifications. From what I remember, the whole "the opposite of an action is everything but that action" was formulated by a somewhat recent philosopher and it solved this rather large issue of the term "opposite" in terms of actions. Wish I could remember the details and who it was. I'm dissecting this more for fun. If black is the lack of all color and white is the presence of all color, then white and black are opposites, but any gradation of grey would also be the opposite of black because it contains all colors as well, the colors are just not as intense as white. Red would not be the opposite of black or white because it is only one color. I suppose it might help to add that black and white require equal color intensity. On the physical level, you could say that white objects reflect photons in the visible spectrum equally while black objects absorb photons in the visible spectrum equally. The term opposite would then refer to photon absorption as opposed to reflection or refracted. Provided an intense enough white light source, grey would describe the absorption ratio, with light grey having a low abortion rate.

Welcome to the board. What got you interested in philosophy?

I think you have to assume certain outcomes to make any sort of a negative attribution to drug dealing. Alcohol for instance is a drug that some percentage of the population becomes addicted to, while the majority has no issue with moderate and safe use. It appears to be the same with harder drugs. There seems to be a mix of genetic predisposition combined with the childhood environment correlated with those that become addicted. I believe the case I am attempting to make is that drug dealing is not inherently shady due to a minority becomes addicted, rather that drug dealing to people you know to be addicted is shady because the dealer is willing to profit at the expense of another's health.