jayarbar

" Can't do a certain action" is based on "personal choice". Can you not see the contradiction here?

Upon questioning the existence of God, my religious friend told me to stop debating and go away too "Kind of difficult to use logic to convince you to accept logic." Is "accept" synonymous with "have faith in"? I have been asked in the past to "accept" God.

"I follow ethical claims such as "do not rape" because I don't believe any person should ever rape." This statement is based on faith. i.e. Faith in the right thing to do.

These answers always lead me to more questions for which I would like rational answers. For example, why be virtuous? What is in it for me? I don't buy the the argument from effect such as the one below. There are a lot of people who benefit from harming others without repercussions. Take for example politicians or wall street bankers. "If you initiate the use of force against others, you give them a reason to harm you." "It takes more effort than NOT initiating the use of force and incurs greater risk." Don't buy this either. A lot of things that take more effort are good for you in the long term such as exercise. "because that is what makes us virtuous, and that leads to happiness. " This statement is not a logical argument. But I am curious whether this is even empirically true. Is there data that proves this? Are there exceptions?

Thanks for the responses. I will definitely take up the suggestions on reading the UPB book. But for the moment, assuming that I find the NAP to be logically/rationally proven in the book, I am curious if there is a rational answer to the following question: Why should we follow and/or apply a logically proven principle?

Religion teaches it's followers to follow God without question. So whatever God says must be obeyed. I am wondering if there is a parallel here with the NAP. Is the NAP subject to debate? In other words, is the NAP derived from rational arguments or is it followed based on faith.

From the perspective of the relation between economics and health. I would love to see a rebuttal to this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeEfXseXdC0

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmjKNGsQG7g[/media] Very good points made by the guests. I would like to know if people here agree with Jordan Peterson whether gender differences are biological or cultural?

Some good responses in here. The reason I posed the question because Obamacare mandates that maternity insurance be covered in all plans. I wouldn't mind if a private insurance company mandated this for every insurance policy to minimize costs.

The argument by most people for the equal sharing of maternity insurance costs between men and women is that "it takes a man and a woman to create a baby" So their argument is that the costs of the condition of the woman (pregnancy) should be shared by the man because they interacted in consensual voluntary sex that lead to the aforementioned condition. Now consider the following: A person eats at a restaurant everyday knowing that the food is cooked in fatty oil. This happens for years so that the person becomes obese. This obesity causes health problems requiring higher than average costs. The above argument could apply here too. The costs of the condition of the person (obesity) should be shared by the restaurant owners because they interacted in consensual voluntary trade that led to the aforementioned condition.