Search the Community

I am a psychology major undergraduate and have a couple days to apply for a job/internship at the Centre for Cognitive Work and Safety Analysis which is a part of the Department of Defence Science and Technology, Australia. Australia is an ally of the United States of America and fought beside them in all the major wars. Australia is a Commonwealth so if Britain declares war, Australia must contribute to the war effort. Australia is actively involved in the war in Afghanistan and the war against ISIS. Australia is also part of the Korean war. My duty might involve improving the displays of fighter aircraft which would directly effect bombing missions in the middle east. Other duties I could be involved in is research, transcribing, conducting interviews and analysis. This internship would last for 4 months maximum. There are many benefits to getting this internship. There are not really any other jobs in the market for students that would challenge my research and cognitive skills. I'm thinking of becoming a neuropsychologist so it's really important, especially when I go for PhD (In Australia it is required). Also, the pay is good and I have no shame for taking taxpayer money while I am young. Also, the centre is literally in the same suburb that I live in, and halfway between my house and my university. Also, it could teach me something about the psychology of those in the military which is very unique knowledge for a libertarian to have. If it were not for the initiation of force, there wouldn't be many better jobs that I could be doing at the moment. While what I'm doing might be directly working for the military, but morally speaking, it's not necessarily different to other work I could be doing because my taxes would go towards the military anyway. Violation of the NAP is wrong, but what I could be doing could help me prevent violations of the NAP more than actually violating the NAP. Also, if I were at any time uncomfortable, I could quit. Still, it bothers me that what I would be doing would be directly contributing to the murder of innocent people. How could I find a balance in this scenario? (did you forget it's valentines day?)

I've been pondering over moral relativism. Seems that one camp says that moral absolutes don't exist because of historical evidence. I take this as a fair point but I see it as fallacious because of appeal to tradition. It tells us nothing about the fact that moral absolutes _can_ exist in the future. Based on this question "Is it right to argue that no moral absolutes can arise in a moral system?" YES, NO Either answer affirms to me that moral absolutes exist in a moral system, because you used a moral judgement to answer a moral question. What is wrong with this argument? Is it fallacious? If so what fallacy does it fall under? It seems like St Anselm's proof to me.

Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/2015/11/05/religion-morality/ The article also provides direct source to the paper here: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2815%2901167-7 Although this isn't something unheard of for most here, it is interesting to see research like this going out to the public, and is useful to have in case you want to share it with people who make claims to the contrary.

how can evolution/atheism account for objective morality?

Hello, I'm a Police Officer and probably the biggest hypocrite of all time! Long story short - I have chose to become a Police Officer around 4 years ago when I was a statist, and only around 6 months ago I have discovered the virtue and beauty of anarchism. I have already spent years chasing this career, I even chose a university course relating to it, in hope that it will aid me in achieving a senior rank. I cannot deny that I enjoy one aspect of the job - helping the actual victims of crime. Since I have discovered anarchy I am doing my best to make sure that my colleagues are not abusing their powers as well as attempt to educate them about things like - war on drugs, personal freedom, implications of incarceration etc - I mean, anything I can do to help to protect the people's liberty and at the same time dim the hypocrisy as much as possible . Moreover, hopefully by achieving a senior rank within the police force I will able to make some impact on the way police operates - potential changes would involve reduction of violation of freedom - It's a long shot, I know. I rationalise remaining in the force by thinking that once I leave - I will be replaced by someone who does not have any respect for personal freedom. What do you guys think? Is it a lost cause to attempt to rehabilitate the force and the way police operates? I hope I won't be slammed too hard for my career!

I believe excessive wealth should not be allowed to be transferred. I am categorically against the emergence of dynastic wealth accumulation. . It's totally against the public interest to have millionaires with so much money, that they don't know what to do with it on the one hand while others cannot pay their mortgage, medical bills and support their children. Anyhow... People should have to earn their way , not have it handed to them. Some might think that this is pure communism doctrine, but its really not at least its not what I meant. What I meant was: Why da fak would some idiot who inherited so much wealth, and believe me I saw a lot of these fuckers, have 5x, 10x, 67x, 1098x better starting platform in life than I do, without a single droplet of sweat? Of course that the right to manage your wealth how ever you consider is undisputed. Its not that I am jealous and almost never been,but lets face it I think it unbelievably stupid to have an institution of inheritance. I would like to live in a world where every man or woman is completely responsible for his or her own life , which means that by my standards you cannot be an intelectual , you cannot be a succesful person, parent or professional if you achieved that with the help of your family pedigre, money or influence.

Hi All, I happen to be a member of the Sam Harris forums and I recently received an email about a contest that Sam Harris is having in February regarding moral philosophy. He's asking fellow thinkers to send in a rebuttal to his Moral Landscape book/theory (however you want to perceive it). I've always been a fan of Sam Harris but I've never been satisfied with his well-being vs. suffering postulation as all my conscious brain can do is poke hole after hole in his arguments that ultimately come down to utilitarianism (in my opinion). So he's got this contest, here: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-moral-landscape-challenge1 The prize is $2,000 dollars to be published and $10,000 if you're actually able to change his mind. Frankly, I want Stef to take it to the hole here, but that doesn't mean that any one of us couldn't put forth the best arguments (1000 words or less) based on what's (starting to become) natural to us. This is fun, it's incentivized, and it's an opportunity to get Sam Harris thinking more about UPB. If you're interested, I'm glad I was able to show it to you. I hope everyone is doing great. Thanks and keep supporting FDR and each other. Justin