And that is the sad reality of the world. Government function has many implications in peoples personal lives where it should not.Quote:
Originally Posted by dafydd manton
Printable View
And that is the sad reality of the world. Government function has many implications in peoples personal lives where it should not.Quote:
Originally Posted by dafydd manton
This point gets a little more complicated, because now I can apply that to plants and bacteria etc... If we assume all mammals are sentient then morally we would basically have to stop nearly all animal testing and there would be alot at stake for the "truly" sentient humans. So I think this importance "weighting" gets more complicated. In an equation it might look something like this..........if such a thing could be put to an equation....Quote:
Originally Posted by African_Love
(Percent Certainty of Sentience) * (Suffering of Animal)(2) = (Benefit to Human/Humanity or Anti-Suffering of Human/Humanity)
With a balanced equation being of neutral morality.
Implicit in this equation would be the idea that if an animal (or other "being") is sentient than it has to be treated within the same moral framework as a human.
So anyway I think this is the big issue with such a discussion is how certain is certain enough (in my equation 50% certain would be the threshold) and also how do we reliably gauge our own certainty... that is "what criteria would make me able to comfortably say that I am in fact 50% certain."
Anyway I would suggest a book (and not jsut with regards to this issue) entitled "Natural Born Cyborgs" by Andy Clark. An argument counter to sentient animals regards their lack of language (or their lack of brain stuff that allows them to acquire language) precluding self-referentiality / memory, which is posited as a requisite or even possibly the defining characteristic of consciousness.
Right but just because a nervous system produces consciousness says nothing about whether other systems can also give rise to consciousness. How would we define our current consciousness? Reactions against the environment and the remembrance of those actions for later reactions etc... Or do we need to actually experience qualia etc....To remember and have later access to that qualia? Is it still qualia if I'm only remembering it?Quote:
Originally Posted by African_Love
I would suggest checking out "The Web of Life" by Fritjov Capra. It provides interesting ideas about why bacteria, plants etc... could be considered conscious, as well as larger systems such as communities, societies, the world etc.. Though be warned it is a difficult if you do not come from a science background, and maybe even if you do.
But anyway I would seriously urge you to check out both these books, as gauging by your opinions I would think you would really enjoy them. Also they are not so narrow as I have described them here but are in fact very broad.
Also of your book rec's which do you suggest as the better or more informative read?
Hmm well this thread shows how the pursuit of freedom is one of the most dangerous things known to man.
Oh and as for the Child Porno thing, sorry Affrican love and Breathtest but I have to disagree based on personal experience. I have noted that when I watch Porn, I am more likely to get laid when I go out, as my sexual desire considerably increases and I am far more likely to take risks ( flirting) and act upon my sexual desire. So in my opinion child porn, makes pedoe's more likley to act upon it.
As to abolishing animal testing, as with almost everything we are in a huge moral gray area. I do agree animal testing on cosmetics should be abolished, however if they don't test it on animals and their first tests are on humans, several women each ear shall have permanent disfigurations due to bad reactions. At which point, the question is difficult, which is the lesser evil ? Oh and animal testing for developing new medicines is a necessary evil ( I know that the term "necessary evil" has been used in the past to commit some of humanities greatest atrocities which sometimes shame us of being part of this race) But I do believe that while we should try to be as human and empathetic with these creatures during the experimentation, it must be done. At the end when we have to choose between the death of a chimp and a loved one, we all know who we would rather make it. Is it evil ? yes, is stopping it a greater evil ? probably.
I think a general system of misconception in regards to all GOVERNING toddies is that there is a good way. In regards to governing bodies there isn't, all ways are evil, just some are less evil than others, and here is the irony, that evil is necessary.
Oh and for the abolition of religion, I totally disagree. Religion is necessary, in fact taking away religion from man, is something cruel, very cruel, it would cause an amount of suffering which would be unprecedented. For many people religion is the ONLY comfort and beacon of light in their lives, would you take that away from them ?
Besides banning religion would only increase it popularity dramatically. Human nature I believe. Baby one has a toy which he doesnt consider, baby two comes and takes said toy, all of a sudden baby one desperately craves his toy back.
Oh and to the opinion of love that it was only an basic evolutionary concept controlled by neurons...so what ? If you have been in love you will know that that bit of information is worth jackship, who cares what causes it ? It is one of the most beautiful emotions which really does give meaning to life.
Oh and I have to more opinions
1) There are two types of people in this world; those who admit their hypocrisy, and those who don't.
2) the attempt to force ones opinions on others is wrong is wrong, from hitler to jesus, no matter if they be good or bad, the second you try to convert others to your mode of though you are in the wrong.
My point actually was that Ginsberg was referring to ephebophilic feelings, i.e. feelings toward minors in the legal sense who are post-pubescent, which is considered normal by psychologist. The standards of age of consent vary between cultures, in Canada an adult can pursue a relationship with a 16 year old legally, in some parts of the US as well, but in California the age is 18. Not that I generally approve of adults who date older teenagers, I just don't think it is immediately impossible for such a relationship not to be exploitative, nor is any participant in the relationship at any great risk of mental anguish.Quote:
Originally Posted by breathtest
The rest I mostly agree with, frankly just because I think such an approach would lower the number of victims.
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
Quote:
Oh and as for the Child Porno thing, sorry Affrican love and Breathtest but I have to disagree based on personal experience. I have noted that when I watch Porn, I am more likely to get laid when I go out, as my sexual desire considerably increases and I am far more likely to take risks ( flirting) and act upon my sexual desire. So in my opinion child porn, makes pedoe's more likley to act upon it.
I agree that that may be the case for some people, but if you masturbate over pornography then the endorphins released make you more chilled out and less sexually charged. I think providing an outlet would be helpful. Maybe controlled studies should be done to see whather it would work or not.
SLG- 1. And so... rather than wasting your time and money upon something as trivial as an on-line literature discussion board you will undoubtedly be spending all of your free-time raising the money needed to end world hunger, warfare, rape, racism, sexism, etc....
Dodo25- It costs money? Wasting your time is relative, I think rational debate, writing and reading literature is a good way to spend time. Books can change the way people think - positively. And since I'm 19 and soon go to college, I'm not earning any money yet. But if I ever make a comfortable living, I will indeed donate a lot of it to sensible charities.
Last I heard a computer costs money, an internet connection cost money. Why waste this money on something so frivolous when you could be ending world hunger? Why spend the thousands of dollars to attend college... borrowing from taxpayers and from banks... with the goal of your own personal enrichment... when you could be ending warfare internationally? You need to consider your pretensions. You equate the indifference of those buying a bigger home to the sufferings and starvation of countless individuals on the other side of the world but you ignore your complicity when measured by the same standards.
Dodo25- It's very possible that those people prone to such behavior are the ones who seek out the material in the first place. The studies have to eliminate that variable.
How do we do that? How do we know who is or is not prone to anti-social or sociopathic behavior ahead of time?
SLG- And how do we go about this? Logistics please..
Dodo25- There'd have to be a curriculum, a detailed overview in philosophy and science that every candidate has to go through. The 'philosopher kings' would have to apply for the job, pass tests and eventually get chosen.
Who chooses them? Why are we to assume that a knowledge of philosophy is at all useful for a ruler? Leadership involves organization and administration, delegation of responsibilities to appropriate individuals, selection of qualified employees, the ability to motivate individuals, social skills, etc...
Dodo25- The life of these 'kings' would be the opposite from the life of a normal king. They life comfortable, but no luxury and no fame. There should be nothing that corrupts them, no possibility for more power/money.
And thus... what is their motivation? This is always the question that every Utopian concept of government fails.
Dodo25- Every decision will be justified with a final report that goes out to the public. This means, the public can always read through the arguments of the greatest philosophical minds and understand why something was chosen. If people from the public want to veto something, they have to send in argumentative essays. Those are checked by the philosophers (or helpers thereof if there's a lot to do) and replies are sent back to the people.
OK... every decision has to be justified by a report that goes out to the public (Of course all bills and laws must be accessible to the public today... but let's play along). So every decision as to when to fill in a given pothole, plow the snow on a given road, promote this or that individual must be justified in writing to the nation as a whole? And any individual who wishes to challenge any decision may do so simply by submitting an argumentative essay which must be read and relied to? And when will these philosopher kings have time to do anything else?
Dodo25- Why do you resort to calling me a dreamer instead of providing arguments for your position?
One needs not waste time arguing an absurd statement with logic. No one is going to waste time refuting the teen who posts "Shakespeare sucks" by offering up an essay with cited examples in order to prove Shakespeare doesn't suck. The statement is unworthy of such... beneath contempt... just as your suggestion that a Chimpanzee "deserves more ethical consideration than a human infant or an Alzheimer patient" and that experiments can be justified upon experiments on chimps can be justified "for human infants or late-stage Alzheimer patients, especially because it would be of higher medical use to us." This was also the "thinking" Doctor Mengele... the needs of the state outweigh the rights of the individual.
SLG-A genius of both theology and science, no less.
Dodo25- Argument?
There is no argument to faith or belief. You state that there is no God as fact... yet you cannot know this one way or the other. There is no unquestioned scientific proof of the existence of God... but the absence of proof is not the same as proof that something doesn't exist. You dismiss the belief of others... many others... many others far more educated and intelligent than yourself or myself... because these beliefs are founded upon faith and not scientifically measurable fact... and then you turn around and throw out a suppositions (unsupported by fact) about parallel universes that is surely no less "fantastic" than a belief in God. In other words you would replace one belief system with another.
SLG- 9. Yeah... the same idea made China, the Soviet Union, Cambodia, and Nazi Germany safe, idealistic havens in which to raise the kids.
Dodo25- Uhm, that's communism. And in the case of Nazi Germany it's an anti-semitic ideology based on the wrong assumption that the 'Arian race' (which is in no way a 'race' biologically speaking) is superior to the rest of humanity.
Furthermore, I don't remember advocating the abolition of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Stop the straw-men, and go research some history if you don't understand what communism is.
Junior, I have little doubt that I have a greater grasp of history than you will ever likely have. You declare that the world would be a better place without religion. The 20th century was most certainly the most secular in history. Great faith was placed in the sciences and pseudo-sciences and technology. The result was to have been a Utopia. Instead what occurred was the most destructive and murderous century in the history of humanity. The reality is that hatred, prejudice, envy, avarice, jealousy, violence, and murder have always been part and parcel of human existence. Religion is simply one aspect of humanity used by individuals to justify these behaviors. Atheists are no less prone to such behaviors as the Soviet Union, Cambodia, and China, prove. Race, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, class... anything that differentiates one human being from another can be and have been employed as a justification for antisocial and sociopathic behaviors.
SLG- 10. Brave New World... the state shall decide what is best for the individual.
Dodo25- Not really, I don't see how there are parallels.
The parallel is that you are dictating what belief system a parent may pass down to their child. While I quite agree that every individual should approach the issue of religion as an adult and not simply hold firm with the faith in which they were raised(just as any thinking adult should question, test, and explore all that they learned as a child), the notion that indoctrination of... or some might say the idea of passing on a religious tradition to a child is a form of child abuse is absurd. How do we enforce this idea? Do we conduct random searches of homes to make sure that parents are not attempting to pass on their beliefs such as were carried out in the East Block? (And we can see how successful that was. Christianity is a greater presence in Poland and Russia today than it is in France.) Where do we draw the line in limiting parents from passing on belief and value systems... and how do we draw the line once we start down the path of limiting freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and freedom to raise one's children as one sees fit?
The children can still choose eventually, they should just have a free choice. Have you ever looked on a world map based on religions? Isn't it odd that people tend to follow the religion of their parents? After all, if there are n relgions, at least n-1 of them are wrong! So why should we encourage children to adopt them for bad reasons? Why allow indoctrination and label children? Would you call the 5 year old child of neo-nazi parents a nazi?
I still think this is missing the point of what the gray area is (though there may be a communication breakdown and I may not be understanding you correctly).Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
The gray area is whether or not the animal is conscious or has sentience like that of a human, which I guess is just to say sentience.
If the animal does, than they basically need to be enjoying all the moral "rights" that human's do. I just can't see a way around this. What would the justification be?
They aren't as intelligent?
Counter: So then experimenting would be okay on mentally challenged
They are a different species?
Counter: This sounds a lot like slavery/racism
Greater good?
Counter: See previous two points
I can't even think of any other justifications
-----------------------------------------------
That being said, currently I am of the opinion that no animal has sentience and therefore I have no rational sympathy whatsoever for them. I think no kind or amplitude of animal experimentation is wrong. I even don't think there is anything morally wrong with someone straight up torturing an animal for fun, though I would of course have the visceral response of being appalled. Also I would shrewdly take this as an indicator that this may be a mentally unstable person :smilewinkgrin:
SLG- And who is to absorb this debt? Its always easy to imagine some great evil faceless capitalist corporations that doesn't need any more money... but investments in the economic development of other countries must be paid for by someone and this someone includes not merely the corporate CEOs and high-stakes investors but many small investors, retirement plans, etc... If debt to all third world nations were eliminated who eats the financial loss? The taxpayers of the Western nations who had nothing to do with the investments or the corruption of the third world governments? And what will be the likely result? An immediate halt to all investment in developing nations. Who is going to take such a risk?
African Love/AL- I have to read more about the issue and this is a reasonable argument as far as legitimately acquired debt is concerned (despite the need to lower as much debt as is possible for humanitarian reasons) but the U.S and other Western countries were never justified in lending money to non-representative governments and expecting their citizens to pay for it.
The reality is that individual companies, investment firms, etc... invest in developing countries with the intention of making a profit. Investors measure potential gains against the possible losses. A company looks to a developing nation... China for example... and they may see a large population of potential customers, or great natural resources. They weigh the potential profits against the stability of the nation. The developing nations need the investments to further development and growth... ideally to better the lives of the population as a whole. It is unrealistic to suggest that the Western democracies are wrong to invest in any nation that is not governed by a representative government such as our own. Nations of different systems of government and different belief systems have engaged in trade throughout the whole of history.
SLG- So incest, rape, necrophilia and every other sexual deviation should also be imagined as merely a variation upon the individual's sexual orientation?
AL- A sexual orientation is a pattern of sexual and romantic feelings towards a certain demographic. Relatives and corpses are not a demographic
Semantics. You are simply defining the term in a highly limited manner. Sexual orientation simply describes a pattern of sexual (and/or romantic) attraction. Such orientation may refer to hetero- or homosexuality... attraction to individuals of the opposite of the same sex... but it need not be so limited. Human sexual desire is certainly not so limited. There are individuals sexually attracted to animals (bestiality), children (pedophilia), to corpses (necrophilia), to feces (coprophilia), to the grossly obese, to the wealthy, to blonds, to redheads, etc... There are those who garner sexual thrill from raping or even killing. Society as a whole has come to the determination that some of these patterns of sexual attraction should not be acted upon... should be deigned as illegal. The fact that the individual may not be able to control such thoughts or desires may make them "natural"... but this does not justify the individual from acting upon these desires. There are time in rush hour traffic when my thoughts lean toward running some idiot off the road and into a ditch... but this does not justify my actually doing so.
AL-(and I don't see how someone can have romantic feelings for a corpse itself rather than the person they used to be) and rape is just forced/unwanted sex so I think these things are better thought of as 'fetishes' or preferences but still, I will apply the same logic. I see nothing wrong with consensual sex between adult relatives, who they want to be with is none of my business. Necrophilia would be harmless were it not for the demoralizing effect that it has on the deceased's friends, family members and members of the community in general, for that reason alone (and not a concern for the deceased) it should be discouraged. Rape is wrong because it causes suffering. If a man wants to fantasize about raping other people, I think this is unempathetic but thoughts are free. Rape fantasies are harmless as long as he doesn't act on them.
Jonathan Swifts brilliant fiction, A Modest Proposal was a masterpiece of logic applied to the absurd or even obscene and taken to the absurd and obscene conclusion. Of course Swift was being ironic. No such luck here.:mad2:
SLG- The notion that there is nothing inherently harmful about adult/child sexual relations is an absolute absurd statement that shows no knowledge at all about the emotional/psychological scars that such "relationships" leave.
AL- I'm not interested in convincing you that not all children who have had sex with an adult become emotionally damaged as a result and that sometimes the effects are actually positive. Just tell me this - if hypothetically it could be guaranteed that a child having sex with an adult would not cause them to suffer, in fact, the experience would be pleasurable for them, would there still be a moral reason to discourage them from having sex with that adult? Why?
Not every child who has been involved in a sexual relationship has been traumatized and left with life-long emotional scars... thus we should legalize pedophilia? And by the same token, since not all rape victims are traumatized or left emotionally wasted we should also legalize rape? The reality is that most children before a given age are not prepared for the emotional baggage that comes with sex... although they may be physically prepared. The child who does jump into sexual relationships early on is in a great majority of the instances simply seeking attention... acceptance... even love... or an escape. Any adult who enters into such a relationship is simply taking advantage of a vulnerable child... most commonly because he or she has emotional issues himself/herself and feels inadequate to engage in an appropriate relationship with another consenting adult... or simply desires to control the relationship and the other individual.
SLG- Not likely to happen. You are asking for the protection of the government in guaranteeing your rights as a spouse in matters of health insurance, tax benefits, social service benefits, death benefits, inheritance, etc... but you want the government to have no say as to what relationships they will or will not recognize. Yes, homosexual marriage should be recognized... but polygamy? I have great health benefits through my employer. Perhaps I should be able to declare that I am married to ten or 15 women guaranteeing them all access to my health benefits (perhaps at a small cost to them)? Or perhaps I should be allowed to marry my dog and claim she has the same rights to free health care?
As far as health insurance, tax benefits, medical decisions etc. are concerned, why should a romantic partner have these benefits anymore than a close family friend? Why do romantic relationships warrant greater respect than platonic ones? Isn't it strange how when an immigrant marries a native born citizen they have to prove to a government official that their relationship is genuine rather than a scam to acquire citizenship? How do you prove love and why should love be a legal issue? Why is it any more important to the government that people have a right to bring lovers from other countries into their own and not friends or extended family members?
One might argue that an individual's spouse is afforded certain rights and benefits as a result of having earned it... and in many cases this may be true. The wife loses time at work and income during pregnancy and perhaps even in raising the children. Many spouses support the other's efforts in attending school, during illnesses, etc... Ultimately, it comes down to the issue of money. Employers recognize that offering benefits to the spouses and children of an employee is a means of attracting and retaining quality employees. At the same time... they are not about to dole out coverage where they don't need to... beyond the accepted notion of the family. By the same token, the government is not likely to be willing to count your 20 close friends, your dog, or the 10 Mexican women you married last week in Vegas among those eligible for government recognition and benefits.
AL- And I do think that domesticated, non-human animals should receive free medical care if the 'owner' can not afford it, since human society is responsible for their existence.
That would be ideal... but unlikely in a nation that cannot even agree upon free medical care for its citizens.
SLG- So whenever we need to build further housing we need to get permission from the rabbits, frogs, tadpoles, and gnats who live there? Whenever we wish to tear down a home or building that has become unsafe or unusable we need to think about the rights of the rats, mice, and roaches that call that building "home"?
AL- We can't walk on egg shells but we can avoid wiping out 90% of West Africa's original forests. Entire species are extinct because of human behavior.
What you suggest here is not what you initially suggested. I quite agree that we need to become aware of our impact upon the environment. I am appalled by the fact that the US government often offers benefits and incentives to developers to develop lands further and further from the large urban centers thus increasing gasoline consumption, pollution, the costs of the highways, etc... and contributing to the collapse of the inner cities... rather than offering incentives for rebuilding and developing in the inner cities... including appropriately funding the schools and public services. The problem with development in developing countries is how to limit the environmental damage while still allowing for growth. How do we tell the Africans or Brazilians to stop depleting their rain-forests after we in the West... in Europe and the United States... have depleted our natural resources? Do we suggest that all you Brazilians and Africans continue to live in huts... and not aspire to our standard of living?
So... if someone decides to repeatedly rape and then murder a child its all the fault of their environment... or rather there is no fault at all... just physical action and reaction... and as a result there should be no consequences (good or bad) for any behavior. Which would of course lead to "justice" solely dealt out on a basis of "might makes right". The child murderer did nothing wrong... but neither did the parent who killed the child murderer.
Ask yourself, when you hear of a man raping a woman, are you primarily angry because he had the audacity to break social rules and to violate somebody else's rights or are you upset because an innocent person was made to suffer? If instead of being raped that woman was in a car accident that left her paralyzed from the neck down,would you still care, since there's no one to be blamed for her misfortune? It's possible to feel empathy for the victim without feeling anger towards the victimizer. We don't need to blame people for their actions in order to want to prevent anti-social behavior anymore than we need to be able to blame the weather in order to want to prevent tsunami's or floods. The child murderer did do something 'wrong', he just can't be blamed for it.
No. That's just idealistic fantasy... or once again... logic/illogic applied to an absurd proposition and taken to the point of extreme absurdity and even obscenity. The individual who cannot abide by the most basic rules of society needs to be removed from society. If the government cannot achieve this, it will be carried out in a vigilante manner.
If I go to college, I'll get a job where I can make more money and hence donate more. Living like Thoreau in a hat isn't productive. And of course, some basic priviledges that make life fun just have to be there. Humans aren't perfect, self-interest is a strong drive. All I'm saying is people, and governments, should give more than what's given now.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Dodo25- It's very possible that those people prone to such behavior are the ones who seek out the material in the first place. The studies have to eliminate that variable.
There's probably a genetic component, one could sample the genes of the consumer or anti-social behavior group and compare it to the average population. Brain scans might be helpful too, technology will soon allow fairly decent analyses.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Many of these tasks can be given to people with less power. I'm just talking about the important decision making.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Compassion? A sense of duty? Having the priviledge of studying the fruits of thousands of years of human culture and using them humanely.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Does the president of the US make decisions concerning potholes? Does the supreme court or the senate? And okay, let's add that the argumentative essay needs to be signed by 50'000 people first before the rulers bother with reading it.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
I made a coherent argument for this and you still didn't respond.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
I stated 'there MOST CERTAINLY is no god'. Faith is irrational and dangerous. Faith is belief without evidence, which is a stupid thing. The parallel universe has nothing to do with religion or god. It's just an opinion I hold. And I did mention that this is the one I'm least able to defend.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
However, there is some evidence for it, some string theorists think there are parallel universes. CERN will show what's the case.
Actually, Mr IKnowSoMuchHistory, the 20th century was the most peaceful time in the history of humanity. There's a talk by Stephen Pinker on it (titled the 'myth of violence' or something like that. Of course, it was the century of large scale genocide and almost nuclear war. Yet if one adds everything together, the improvements in education, healthcare and technology in general have lowered the homicide rate considerably. Also keep in mind that nowadays there are much more people than hundred years ago, the argument is of course percentage wise.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
The problem with religion is that it can motivate good people to do evil. Few other things can do that. If one sincerely believes that i.e. the Qu'ran is divinely inspired, there's a logical pathay leading over an airplane right into the twin towers.
These are important questions. A lot can be achieved by simply stopping to refer to children as 'Christians' or 'Muslims' before a certain age. Furthermore, one can make it mandatory to have comparative religion in school, so the children get the information from a neutral source.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
No, I can't either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rores28
Just answer this question: Would you experiment on a 3 year old child?
If the answer is no, then don't experiment on animals. Cats have the intelligence of a 3 year old child.
We shouldn't discriminate based on species. Experiment on animals if it's a product for animals. Experiment on humans if it's for humans. There'll always be willing participants. If I were terminally ill and there's an experimental drug, I would volunteer. Pay people enough money or give them hope, they'll come out of the woodwork. No need to put animals through the torture.
Dodo25 (DD)- If I go to college, I'll get a job where I can make more money and hence donate more. Living like Thoreau in a hat isn't productive. And of course, some basic priviledges that make life fun just have to be there. Humans aren't perfect, self-interest is a strong drive. All I'm saying is people, and governments, should give more than what's given now.
Self interest tends to become more powerful when the money you are talking about was earned by your own labor... at a job that you quite often find less than ideal... and especially if you have a family whose immediate needs and wants concern you far more than something that appears but an abstraction. Should "we" give more? What country donates any where near what the US contributes to half of the developing nations of the world?
SLG- How do we know who is or is not prone to anti-social or sociopathic behavior ahead of time?
DD-There's probably a genetic component, one could sample the genes of the consumer or anti-social behavior group and compare it to the average population. Brain scans might be helpful too, technology will soon allow fairly decent analyses.
I doubt that we might simply attribute socio-pathic behavior to a given genetic component. Even if we could identify those individuals prone to sociopathic behavior ahead of time... what do we do with them?
SLG-And thus... what is their motivation? This is always the question that every Utopian concept of government fails.
DD- Compassion? A sense of duty? Having the priviledge of studying the fruits of thousands of years of human culture and using them humanely.
"Self-interest is a strong drive..." or so you stated above. What is in it for the individual? Compassion? A sense of duty? Priviledge? :lol::rofl: How many individuals do you imagine would put forth the effort and the expense of medical school and residency if a doctor were paid the same as a school teacher or an office clerk? You are suggesting a ruler... a leader of a nation... with all that entails... the stress, the long hours, the time spent away from the family, the lack of privacy... and for little or no personal reward. The reality is that those willing to do the job under such conditions probably aren't the best qualified, and the best qualified aren't likely to be willing to do the job under those conditions. Of course Plato's solution was to essentially "draft" the philosopher kings... force them into doing the job as a great noble sacrifice due to society. What a noble idea. The poor philosopher suffering for the sake of humanity.:sosp:
SLG- OK... every decision has to be justified by a report that goes out to the public (Of course all bills and laws must be accessible to the public today... but let's play along). So every decision as to when to fill in a given pothole, plow the snow on a given road, promote this or that individual must be justified in writing to the nation as a whole? And any individual who wishes to challenge any decision may do so simply by submitting an argumentative essay which must be read and relied to? And when will these philosopher kings have time to do anything else?
DD- Does the president of the US make decisions concerning potholes? Does the supreme court or the senate?
No... but are we assuming that only the presidency or its equivalent runs under the philosopher king? How effective will this be if all of the vast members of the bureaucracy are the same as they ever were?
DD-And okay, let's add that the argumentative essay needs to be signed by 50'000 people first before the rulers bother with reading it.
You seem to be slipping back to the notion of a populist system which is what we essentially have at this time. So now the brilliant individual can have the most profound idea but if that idea is not popular with the masses...? While a moron like Glenn Beck can be assured that all of his complaints will be heard?
SLG- There is no argument to faith or belief. You state that there is no God as fact... yet you cannot know this one way or the other. There is no unquestioned scientific proof of the existence of God... but the absence of proof is not the same as proof that something doesn't exist. You dismiss the belief of others... many others... many others far more educated and intelligent than yourself or myself... because these beliefs are founded upon faith and not scientifically measurable fact... and then you turn around and throw out a suppositions (unsupported by fact) about parallel universes that is surely no less "fantastic" than a belief in God. In other words you would replace one belief system with another.?
DD- I stated 'there MOST CERTAINLY is no god'.
Yes... a statement of fact... which you cannot substantiate with proof.
DD- Faith is irrational and dangerous.
So is love.
DD- Faith is belief without evidence, which is a stupid thing.
Is it? We all engage in acts of faith each an every day. How many things do you take for granted without ever having proven them? The Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776... Was it? How do you know? Were you there? Or are you merely taking the word of others for fact? Faith is stupid? Again it would seem no stupider than love for those in love will often trust one another... without the need of empirical proof. faith is stupid? Yet amazingly there are so many brilliant individuals... far more brilliant than you are I... who had faith.
DD- The parallel universe has nothing to do with religion or god. It's just an opinion I hold. And I did mention that this is the one I'm least able to defend.
It is a fantastic "belief without evidence" (which have suggested is stupid).
DD- However, there is some evidence for it, some string theorists think there are parallel universes. CERN will show what's the case.
You seemingly place a great deal of "faith" in science... considering some of the achievements of science in the last 100 years during two world wars and elsewhere, some might suggest that your "faith" is a belief contrary to evidence.
DD- The problem with religion is that it can motivate good people to do evil. Few other things can do that. If one sincerely believes that i.e. the Qu'ran is divinely inspired, there's a logical pathay leading over an airplane right into the twin towers.
Nationalism, Racism, prejudice, envy, fear, lust, love, any number of things may motivate the individual into doing evil. Even striving toward ideals. The French, Soviet, and Russian Revolutions all devolved into atrocity and horror in spite of the noblest intentions. Of course, "the road to hell... "
I don't want to derail this into another atheism vs. theism thread. However, it is ridiculous to say that certain kinds of beliefs are not more valid than others. While nobody ever acts always on the basis of empirical evidence, it is perfectly reasonable to reject the claims of others when they lack empirical support.
If I were on the phone with someone in Morocco and they told me it was raining there, I may be inclined to believe them purely out of faith in their honesty. However, when the claims of that person over the phone contradict conventional logic, say if they told me it was raining fire, I think it would be reasonable to disagree with them and call them a liar unless they provide some sort of evidence. Likewise, claims about deities fall into that category of outlandish claims that one would be perfectly reasonable to be skeptical of without empirical evidence.
Merely saying that everyone makes decisions based on "faith" occasionally doesn't really add anything to the credibility of theistic claims.
Edit: I also don't want to get into the multiple universe thing, by education I'm a biologist not a physicist, however I would caution Dodo against making absolutist claims, which are never made in science. The realm of facts is only relevant to measurements and qualities of observable phenomena, our hypotheses and theories are merely supported by the evidence not proven. The scientific method operates off of the basis of falsification, thus the current status quo is always open to refinement as our knowledge improves.
Hm I think Religion is not the problem it is an outlet, take for example the french revolution, they removed religion stating it along with nobility was the cause of suffering. Yet in one year 1793-1794, more people were guillotined than in the last hundred years of french history. They simply replaced Religion with Nation. Before it was, you go against the church you suffer, then it became you go against the Nation, you suffer. The problem is human nature, and there is no cure, I think genocide is the closest cure for that a sort of human extermination, but that goes against the interests of well everyone...
"DD- Faith is irrational and dangerous.
So is love."
Freedom and Love are the most dangerous things known to man, yet they are the only things worth living, it is rather beautiful...in a twisted sort of way.
Oh and blind belief in atheism is just as dangerous as blind belief in religion, the best way is tolerance, I think in Europe, we have achieved an almost perfect balance, all religions are tolerated and none suffer due to their beliefs. Well the muslim extremist in the last few years kinda ****ed up the balance, but we were almost there.
"Compassion? A sense of duty? Having the priviledge of studying the fruits of thousands of years of human culture and using them humanely."
Ok im sorry I don't want to sound patronizing here, but that just made me laugh, it is this type of idealism which leads to creatures such as, The French republic in the 1790's, the soviet union as well as the Communist states in china and south eats asia, as well as fascism. These were all states founded on an idealism which reflected reality just as much as ones dreams reflect reality, and the results...well, we all know them.
History is such an important subject, as no other subject teaches us about mankind and ourselves as much as history. If we study history we can avoid the repetition of most mistakes, for example for historians the Nazi genocide of jews was no surprise, as merely 40 years perviously the German empire had conducted a very similar style of genocide, though more crude, with an African ethnicity, in one of their colonies which kept annoying the germans, so they wiped them all out, from infant to men, everyone was killed, in a form of rough and undeveloped concentration camp.
An also history is why most of the political ideas suggested on this thread are laughed at, because history of the last century has showed us what happens when these ideas are put into practice.
Sorry if I sounded preach there, I hate it when I do that, hypocrisy is such a tempting vice, the most tempting of all I should say.
There is a book I highly highly recommend entitled "Stumbling On Happiness" by Daniel Gilbert. No matter what your interests, it has relevance to everyone, and so to this topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
There have been numerous studies done on what metrics affect people's happiness, and as the saying goes money can't buy it... kinda. There is very little correlation between happiness and income/money unless one is below the poverty line. Guess what a strong indicator of happiness is... job satisfaction, along with love/marriage, and some other big metrics which my fuzzy memory can't ascertain. Anyway this book/studies are pretty illuminating and as far as I know have been replicated many times with consistent findings.. that is to say most don't consider them particularly debatable.
Given that, I would say that this job of philosopher king would offer perhaps an unprecedented degree of job satisfaction, while offering I don't know what Dodo suggested, a middle class income/living situation?
So I would say these philosopher kings would be quite happy, though that is not exactly the point, because what this book also highlights, is how woefully bad we are at gauging what actions might bring future happiness. So it would only need to be perceived as a relatively unhappy situation for individuals to consider it so. So that is a complicated issue I think.
Anyway SLG and Dodo I think the problem with the philosopher king scenario and with rulers in general may lie more in this
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
The most thoughtful and reflective often shy away I think from leadership positions especially in an arena as sprawling as politics because they realize what a truly staggering clusterfcuk of variables it is. There is a constant anxiety about making the "correct" decisions, which paradoxically may lead to the aphoristic paralysis by analysis. It seems to me like leadership positions are often filled by confident decisive morons (this may be too harsh) who also possess above average proportions of charisma.
But seriously check out stumbling on happiness... its excellent. Be warned though it is written by a psychology professor, and so is not terribly literary for those of you with such inclinations:smile5:
There is a book I highly highly recommend entitled "Stumbling On Happiness" by Daniel Gilbert. No matter what your interests, it has relevance to everyone, and so to this topic.
There have been numerous studies done on what metrics affect people's happiness, and as the saying goes money can't buy it... kinda. There is very little correlation between happiness and income/money unless one is below the poverty line. Guess what a strong indicator of happiness is... job satisfaction, along with love/marriage, and some other big metrics which my fuzzy memory can't ascertain. Anyway this book/studies are pretty illuminating and as far as I know have been replicated many times with consistent findings.. that is to say most don't consider them particularly debatable.
Whether the grossly wealthy are more happy than the moderately wealthy or the merely comfortable is irrelevant when we come to the question of motivation. Very few individuals are going to be willing to put fort the effort and make the sort of sacrifices necessary to a position of national leader without a powerful incentive... and I doubt that telling them that you'll make a moderately comfortable salary but you'll have lots of job satisfaction and studies have proven that you'll be just as happy if not more so than if you were paid an attractively high salary is likely to be a great selling point: "Honest kid, trust me on this. I know it sounds absurd, but you'll be happier knowing that you were a compassionate leader than you would be with the million dollar salary." Let's face it... we already get a lot of unqualified figures in the political sphere. It is quite likely that a great deal more of the best qualified individuals will reject any thoughts of the public sector when the benefits are so little in comparison to what can be gained in the private sector.
Quote:
Whether the grossly wealthy are more happy than the moderately wealthy or the merely comfortable is irrelevant when we come to the question of motivation. Very few individuals are going to be willing to put fort the effort and make the sort of sacrifices necessary to a position of national leader without a powerful incentive... and I doubt that telling them that you'll make a moderately comfortable salary but you'll have lots of job satisfaction and studies have proven that you'll be just as happy if not more so than if you were paid an attractively high salary is likely to be a great selling point: "Honest kid, trust me on this. I know it sounds absurd, but you'll be happier knowing that you were a compassionate leader than you would be with the million dollar salary." Let's face it... we already get a lot of unqualified figures in the political sphere. It is quite likely that a great deal more of the best qualified individuals will reject any thoughts of the public sector when the benefits are so little in comparison to what can be gained in the private sector.
I know that you scoffed at the idea of a person wanting to become a leader because of the priviledge and because of compassion, but i think there are a lot of people in the world who would be well-enough motivated by that. Even if people really are only self-interested, i think there are many delusional (maybe delusional's a bit harsh, maybe not) people out there who believe that they are truly patriotic and want to help people and have no personal gain themselves. After all, there are many people, philosphers especially, who are not motivated by material possessions, so money would not be something they want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Right this is what I was suggesting here
So I would say these philosopher kings would be quite happy, though that is not exactly the point, because what this book also highlights, is how woefully bad we are at gauging what actions might bring future happiness. So it would only need to be perceived as a relatively unhappy situation for individuals to consider it so. So that is a complicated issue I think.
However, I think my position on that subject is a little more optimistic than yours. Perhaps if there were a spokesperson of hilterian charisma and rhetorical skill.......
I maintain though, that a more damning barrier is the one I mentioned above
I know that you scoffed at the idea of a person wanting to become a leader because of the priviledge and because of compassion, but i think there are a lot of people in the world who would be well-enough motivated by that.
The problem is that those people are likely to be idealistic dreamers who are far from what is needed to administer the complex issues that face a national leader. Where, for example, do you find positions of a like nature today: a job that is incredibly high-stress, that involves long hours and time spent away from friends and family, that places the individual in a position of continual scrutiny and criticism, the eliminates any privacy, that demands much of the individual in terms of education and experience... and in return offers but minimal in terms of tangible benefits to the individual outside of abstractions such as a sense of privilege and duty? Thomas More and even Plato were throwing out such ideas ages ago and yet faltered on the same issue of motivation. More simply glossed the question over as you have attempted with the naive notion that contrary to what we know of human nature from history, individuals will gladly sacrifice for little or no personal gain. Plato at least had the common sense to recognize that his ideal philosopher kings were not likely to enter into such responsibilities voluntarily, and so he suggested that they be forced... "drafted" if you will. In part he took this position because he recognized the reality that Rores28 alludes to... that "the most thoughtful and reflective often shy away... from leadership positions especially in an arena as sprawling as politics because they realize what a truly staggering clusterfcuk of variables it is..." (among other reasons) and as a result "leadership positions are often filled by confident decisive morons (this may be too harsh) who also possess above average proportions of charisma." Or more likely... leadership positions will often be filled by individuals who recognize the personal gain possible once they have taken the helm of power. Simply put, Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Even if people really are only self-interested, i think there are many delusional (maybe delusional's a bit harsh, maybe not) people out there who believe that they are truly patriotic and want to help people and have no personal gain themselves.
So... we should imagine that these delusional or painfully idealistic individuals are what are needed for the administration of a nation?
After all, there are many people, philosphers especially, who are not motivated by material possessions, so money would not be something they want.
Yep... lots of social workers, philosophers, teachers in parochial schools, etc... who earn but a middling income in spite of all that they attempt to do for society. And how many are expected to have to put forth the sacrifices and the preparatory effort that would be demanded of our "philosopher king"?
( a job that is incredibly high-stress, that involves long hours and time spent away from friends and family, that places the individual in a position of continual scrutiny and criticism, the eliminates any privacy, that demands much of the individual in terms of education and experience... )
Idealism and dreams come cheap. Experience and the ability to deal with reality comes with a price.
I wasn't being naive. I don't actually think the 'philospher kings' theory would work, i was merely addressing the idea of motivation. I don't think everybody would shy away from the sheer volume of work, time and effort needed, because some people don't have families, and some people are 'workaholics' and are not happy unless they are working hard all the time.Quote:
More simply glossed the question over as you have attempted with the naive notion that contrary to what we know of human nature from history, individuals will gladly sacrifice for little or no personal gain.
I just don't think motivation would be a problem. I think what would be a problem is, like you said, if some people are delusional enough to think they are wholly unselfish, then they won't be ideal for running a country. But i do think that is where this theory faulters, not with regards to motivation.
Pretty much any industrialized country. The US gives away less than 1% of its budget. Furthermore, just as an example, the crazy subventions for the US cotton industry used to lower prizes for cotton and lead to third world countries not being able to sell their stuff. I'm not sure if that's still the case, it might very well be.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
This ain't minority report. Since genes aren't absolutely responsible (alone), there's few justification for proactive action. One could suggest treatment in bad cases I guess and make further tests..Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
I disagree. I think the pursuit of knowledge and challenging yet fruitful tasks is one of the best ways to be satisfied in life. If the education offered includes, obviously, a shoarship for a program better (and harder) than Harvard, I'm sure the right people would even volunteer. Think of Kant, Mill, Singer, I'm sure they would. I really don't think motivation would be the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Concerning the required signatures for essays to be presented to the philosopher kings:
Good point, that was a bad suggestion. I think a compromise would be best, a smaller number of people signing and an entry fee would cut down the numbers enough..Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
About me saying 'I didn't make an absolute statement, I said "there most certainly is no God"':
"There most certainly are no unicorns". Do I have to provide proof for this statement? As long as there's no postive evidence for a thing's existance, there really is no reason whatsoever to think that it is likely to exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Furthermore, God is extremely improbable. Creationists like to say things like how crazily improbable amino acid sequences are. Think of whole human beings, they are orders of magnitudes more complex. If they just came out of nowhere, that wouldn't make any sense! Evolution of course explains that, it explains how SIMPLE beginnings over time GRADUALLY lead to complexity.
Complexity cannot be the beginning itself. Something as complex as God (or intelligence, consciousness, all that fancy stuff) just existing is absurd to the highest degree. Believing in God is thinking that one solves the problem of finding an explanation by postulating something that's even harder to explain. Any child sees the problem. As long as there's no evidence, I can say with all intellectual honesty that the existance of God is virtually impossible.
I've had countless discussions about this, I've heard virtually all the arguments there are. I've read the Bible and parts of the Qu'ran and the Hadiths. I've studied evolutionary biology in my free time and read books on philosophy and theism. The answer to the question of God's existance is very obvious, so much speaks against it, nothing for.
DD- Faith is irrational and dangerous.
Indeed. There are even more parallels. Faith can be a 'good thing' in certain situations, even though it is always wrong, it can give hope and stuff. Still, I'm convinced that we have other, more justified, more worthy values we can tie or hopes to. I think the disadvantages of faith outweigh its benefits.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
At least love is the best feeling ever, so that kinda justifies it. And while many crimes do have to do with love, major wars don't (at least at this stage of history).
Scientific advances of the nuclear age just don't do well if people hold beliefs from the bronze age. If the American president talks about 'holy war' (I don't mean Obama), and a complete nut case like Palin almost gets elected as vice president, where does it end? And don't even get me started on Jerusalem.
If people would stop giving 'faith' undeserved respect, if the idea itself became frowned upon, maybe fundamentalism would finally start to disappear and we could live in a more peaceful and educated world. Education is actually very much the key here, there's a strong correlation between atheism and education.
Faith being a stupid thing:
I don't base my life on acts of faith. In fact, I DO NOT HAVE FAITH IN ANYTHING. Not in the sense defined 'belief without evidence'. When I 'believe' that I'm the son of my father, I don't have 'faith' in it, I assume it because in more than 90% of the cases, when the 'parents' tell you they're your parents, they're right. Furthermore I can see some similarities which support the idea of shared genes. Furthermore, my parents have a very good record for telling me the truth (with the exception of Santa Claus).Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
"Where you there?" What kind of question is that? You say you're good at history, why would you study anything about it if you don't have a time machine? We know about historical 'facts' (never 100% proveable, yet still supported by evidence beyond reasonable doubt) because of evidence. That's not faith, it is well-supported belief.
And the argument about brilliant individuals is flawed too. For one thing, there were/are also many 'brilliant individuals' that agree with me. Moreover, some which you may have in mind lived before 1859, and that doesn't really count for the question. Also, I hope you don't mean Einstein or Hawking, because they certainly weren't/aren't religious.
DD- The parallel universe has nothing to do with religion or god. It's just an opinion I hold. And I did mention that this is the one I'm least able to defend.
I'm starting to regret having brought that up. As I said, there is some evidence for it, but among expert circles, it is a minority view. I have my own argument for the existance of multiverses, I think it is sound. Whether that also justifies the explanation for dark mater is a different question. Either way, I guess I can see how you consider this 'faith', note however that I in no way base my life, or for that matter, any important decisions on this 'belief'. Moreover, I don't state 'I know it for sure', I was very careful to emphasize how weak my belief is in this case. And finally, at least there is SOME evidence for it, however small.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
'Belief contrary to evidence', that's a good phrase! That's fundamentalism, faith taken to the extreme. I hav no idea how this applies to me though. Science has made a tremendous progress in the last 100 years. The track record is considerable. So many things once believed because of religion are now explained and attributed to different, natural causes - all due to science. Science isn't perfect, in fact, that's a strength. When mistakes are made, scientists discard the wrong hypotheses and come up with new, improved concepts. Science changes and grows, dogmatic religion doesn't, it's stuck in the barbaric bronze age!Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
DD- The problem with religion is that it can motivate good people to do evil. Few other things can do that. If one sincerely believes that i.e. the Qu'ran is divinely inspired, there's a logical pathay leading over an airplane right into the twin towers.
Yeah sure, but the 'logical pathway' is often lacking, while in religion, it is all too obvious. Also, while the bad aspects of most of the things you mentioned are generally condemned, this is not the case about religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Christian quote:
"I believe there are two kinds of people: People who do believe in Jesus, and people who don't"
Isn't that the worst form of prejudice? Yet if one is actually sincere about faith in the Bible, that's the only view that makes sense, it is the only virtuous view, it is the rigtheous view.
And please let's not start another discussion about religion, there are thousands of threads already.
Sorry Dodo but what I mentioned in my previous post shows how your argument is severely flawed, and only choosing the quote thing from people which you can argue to and prove wrong while ignoring the things you cant argue against, speak to the validity of your argument.
I didn't see anyhting that'd render my argument completely flawed. But you're right, your argument is of course worth discussing. And so is Rores28's objection.
The solution is education. And education doesn't work if there's fundamentalist religion. And as long as there is 'moderate religion', the fundamentalist don't experience enough pressure to let go of their extreme beliefs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
And again, there's the logical pathway to violence. Certainly, sentiments like nationalism and anger can lead to violence. Yet religion actually tells you what to do. It tells you precisely how to execute the women that was raped (if she didn't scream loud enough). It tells you what precisely will happen when one dies a martyr. Or (now Christianity, not Islam) it tells you precisely what will happen when Jesus comes back (which 20% of Americans are convinced will happen DURING THEIR LIFETIME). There are 20% of people in the world's most militarily powerful country that would take the outbreak of World War III as a happy event, the beginning of Armageddon, the coming of their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
I don't think love is that dangerous, yet apart from this I do agree with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
We are far from any balance. Extremism also exists in Christianity. Even in a comparatively educated country like Switzerland, 25% of people don't accept evolution. This might not seem like a 'dangerous thing', yet it does undermine education and leads to an anti-scientific attitude.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
Have you ever entertained the thought that 'extremists' are the only believers that aren't hypocrites? At least they ACTUALLY BELIEVE what their holy texts state. Most moderate believers haven't even read the Bible/Qu'ran, and if they have, they just ignore and rationalize large parts of it.
And for the last time, atheism is no a faith and not a religion. It's as much a religion as 'not collecting comics' is a hobby. If atheism was based on faith, one would base it on faith to not believe in pink unicorns or Narnia in your wardrobe.
"Compassion? A sense of duty? Having the priviledge of studying the fruits of thousands of years of human culture and using them humanely."
Rores28 made an excellent argument in favor of my claim about motivation. I think the 'right people' would be willing to do the job. Democracy is founded on 'idealism' as well, does your argument prove that it must lead to atrocities?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
You fail to make an important distinction. All the atrocities were based on WRONG BELIEFS. Communism just doesn't work, especially if one doesn't even follow what Marx wrote and tries to 'accelerate' the process, as Stalin and Mao did. And the German 'Arian race' is not superior to other humans, there's no ethical justification for that. Also, the Jews did not kill Jesus, and they most likely did not poison any water sources. And even if 'some Jews killed Jesus' and 'some Jews poison water', that wouldn't justify holding all of them accountable would it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
Also the nazi's eugenics program was based on wrong assumptions and was not justifiable by an utilitarian approach to ethics (even more so by a Kantian one of course).
You can't just declare it 'deemed to fail' without making that important distinction and actually look at it closely.
Good point. The problem with any 'committee' instead of a sole ruler is that discussions take time. My hope is that on many issues, the answer is relatively obvious. I think there a 'peaks on a moral landscape' which can be found by logical and analysis, and different individuals with knowledge as perfect as possible would come up with similar solutions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rores28
Again, I never said I was fully convinced with my suggestion. My initial statement was to 'research the possiblity of such a form of government'. I think it's worth it, democracy is far from perfect. We need good leaders to solve problems like i.e. energy and resources.
As of now, it couldn't work because of religion. As soon as a government might make decisions like legalizing euthanasia or confirming Roe v. Wade, some fundamentalist Christians would likely react with terrorism. The first thing that needs to be done is 'critical thinking classes' in all schools as well as a change in education policy so that people don't learn WHAT to think but HOW to think.
1. We are overpopulating the world. It's more destructive to feed those who are starving. Stop sending food to countries where famine is a reality. It's not our responsibility to save every human. By feeding those who are starving (and sending aid to those who have been struck by natural disasters) we are only ensuring that the human population will increase (and more and more people will be born into poverty and famine). Humans are not sacred and we are bound by the laws of nature just like any other animal (just because we can feed and save them, doesn't mean we should... and soon enough we'll find out that saving them means ensuring our demise). What we are doing is not sustainable. This is, of course, connected to the system put in place by the West (or the North, whatever you want to call it). We should abandon our "modern ways". We're won't find a way out of this well by digging deeper.
This is the only thing that matters, imo: finding a way out of this. People want to save the animals, the plants, the fragile eco-systems... Yet they are not willing to make sacrifices. Sure, they'll be more careful with their wood, but chop down the last tree anyway... They'll eat less meat, but shoot the last animal in order to survive...
All these new green and humanitarian initiatives are great, and sure enough they make a difference... but we're not changing our course, we're only changing how we get there. And the longer we wait, the faster we'll arrive.
This is an unpopular view because, in general, people believe they are special.
Our standard of living is based on the illusion that we can continue like this and we can assure this standard for everyone. I suggest we (or they) take a look at the price we've paid for our standard of living. Not only should all the Brazillians and Africans continue to live in huts, as you put it, the West should aspire to their standard of living. That is, if we want to continue living.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
A thread for unpopular ideas. I love it! So here's mine. I don't think men who choose not to parent their children should be forced to pay child support. You see, I believe in equal rights. Any woman may choose not to mother her child (she may give it for adoption) with no further responsibility, financial or otherwise. Men, however, do not have this same right. No one would dream of saying to a woman,"Sure you can give the child up, but you are still financially responsible until it's 18 weather you want it or not. " But this is exactly what happens if you are a man. I think equal rights should mean equal rights FOR ALL. In case it matters, I am a single mother. My son's father is ordered to pay child support. I tried to waive the support,this of course was not allowed
Quote:
1. We are overpopulating the world. It's more destructive to feed those who are starving. Stop sending food to countries where famine is a reality. It's not our responsibility to save every human. By feeding those who are starving (and sending aid to those who have been struck by natural disasters) we are only ensuring that the human population will increase (and more and more people will be born into poverty and famine). Humans are not sacred and we are bound by the laws of nature just like any other animal (just because we can feed and save them, doesn't mean we should... and soon enough we'll find out that saving them means ensuring our demise). What we are doing is not sustainable. This is, of course, connected to the system put in place by the West (or the North, whatever you want to call it). We should abandon our "modern ways". We're won't find a way out of this well by digging deeper.
I think a better solution to overpopulation is restricting the amount of children one family is allowed to have. We cannot ignore the amount of suffering going on in the world. I think people who are currently alive and suffering because of lack of food and water and shelter deserve our attention. Reducing the amount of children two people have together will reduce the population down to a better size, but ignoring suffering on the scale that you have suggested i think would be pretty heartless. I think overpopulation needs to be addressed quickly, but there are more humane and empathetic ways.
You say we cannot ignore the amount of suffering going on in the world. I say we cannot remedy it. Suffering is a part of the world. It's an illusion to think we can stop suffering, or even alleviate it.Quote:
Originally Posted by breathtest
I am certainly an advocate of restricting the amount of children a family can have, however, I don't think it's something that can be put into practise successfully.
I am not suggesting we ignore their suffering. If we take a look at why so many people in the (third) world suffer, we'll find that their suffering is directly linked to how we live. The way we lead our lives is unsustainable and they happen to be those who suffer first. Aiding them without adjusting the way we live is pointless. But people would rather maintain their standard of living and their way of life and send food and aid, than alter their way of life and create a more balanced world.
Very good points @Propter and breathtest.
And the Holy Catholic Church keeps sending priests into HIV-ridden villages preaching the inherent sinfulness of condom use. Here we have people with undoubtedly good motivations doing something absolutely horrible solely due to faith. We cannot tolerate such atrocities, and we should think about the underlying cause for all this. Which is NOT 'human nature', rage, anger, love or nationalism. The cause is religion, faith.
A very good point, Dodo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodo25
But in my opinion equally dangerous, or perhaps even more dangerous is the faith in humanity and human capabilities. We should accept that we cannot control everything. It is the desire and our drive to control every aspect of our lives that is pushing us towards the abyss.
If it aint religion its something else, you just use religion as a scapegoat to avoid to come to terms with the unlikable reality of human nature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodo25
Well that makes complete sense to me. I have to agree. But somehow i can't see us changing the way we live. Not ever. Because, as you say, we are unwilling to make sacrifices.Quote:
You say we cannot ignore the amount of suffering going on in the world. I say we cannot remedy it. Suffering is a part of the world. It's an illusion to think we can stop suffering, or even alleviate it.
I am certainly an advocate of restricting the amount of children a family can have, however, I don't think it's something that can be put into practise successfully.
I am not suggesting we ignore their suffering. If we take a look at why so many people in the (third) world suffer, we'll find that their suffering is directly linked to how we live. The way we lead our lives is unsustainable and they happen to be those who suffer first. Aiding them without adjusting the way we live is pointless. But people would rather maintain their standard of living and their way of life and send food and aid, than alter their way of life and create a more balanced world.
Define god, and only then I can tell you whether I'm an atheist or not. Some people's definition of god is simple "nature". I usually call myself an atheist, but I do happen to believe in nature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
I'll only respond to one bit, not because I agree with all the rest, but because I think I've said enough on the subjects. Especially atheism not being a faith has been covered in a huge thread on this forum.
I think your being pessimistic. To be honest, I am fairly convinced that humanity won't survive the next 200 years. Yet that doesn't mean we shouldn't at least try our best to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
How to tell which believes are right or wrong? That's exactly why we need a committee of experts and DISCUSSION. By the way, by 'philosophers' I don't mean what is normally understood by the term. In the thread 'When does philosophy become drivel' it has been noted repeatedly that a lot of philosophy is either nonsense or unable to come to conclusions.
What is right only emerges in discussions among informed individuals. I can only make the case as far as my knowledge, intelligence and the beliefs I hold allow. It is then on others to improve my ideas by attacking parts of it that are wrong/inconsistent, and by adding their own views and improvements.
If rational and knowledgeable individuals engage in such fruitful discussions, there is a result, because some views are simply wrong, others are most likely wrong, still others are just uncertain, and yet others are reasonable. Never 100% proveable, yet this doesn't mean we shouldn't try to get it as right as possible.
In the end, this comes down to epistemology and all this talk about moral relativism or objectivism. I don't want to get into all this stuff again, but I think it is obvious that some ideas just are superiors to others, and smart, rational people will find them in discussion.
I only have one unpopular opinion, and it is this: Being Autistic is nothing to be proud of, it is simply a fact of who I am, like the fact that I'm a human being.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodo25
I have studied the rise of the soviet union extensively and the french revolution, if you did to, you would see the huge irony in all of what you said.
But as it seems that you are steadfast in your opinions (which is the greatest philosophical and political sin) let us just agree to disagree.
I only know the basics of the French Revolution, but I'm very familiar with the rise of the Soviet Uniton. I don't see any irony at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
There was indeed this Volonté générale notion of democracy which is similar to what I am advocating to consider. The huge difference is that in the system I suggested, there would be transparency and open discussion.
Was there discussion among experts in the Soviet Union? The menschewiki won a vote and then seized power, after that, Lenin set up a dictatorship. And all the small transparency and open dialogue was destroyed and turned into the opposite in Stalinism, which, with it's dogmas and persona cult is almost religion-like, the very opposite of what I was proposing.
I disagree indeed.There are different kinds of being 'steadfast in opinion'. If one has a coherent, well-supported argument and is thus convinced of one's case, that's not a bad thing. It only becomes bad if one refuses to take other views into consideration, if one dogmatically rejects evidence of better views and opinions. I am willing to change my mind, I'm open for being persuaded by arguments and evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
I've pointed out on several occasions that the decrease in sex crimes equivalent to the increase in porn and internet availability is nowadays compelling evidence that watching porn decreases the likelihood of sex crime, rather than what some people would like us to think.
I don't agree. People who can be motivated to do evil in the name of religion are equally likely to do so in the name of something else, or as more frequently happens, in the name of nothing at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodo25
There must be an inherent defect in the person first, genetic or learned.
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Oddly, early indications are that our current PM is the unique member of that group.
Bravo!Quote:
Originally Posted by iamnobody
Unfortunately, you're about 1 millennium ahead of the majority of humankind.
I'd take that bet. It'll take more than 200 years to rid the planet of us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodo25
I don't quite get why that's unpopular - can you explain? I can't say I've seen anyone seeming to be proud of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Technophile
Isn't the 'learned' aspect done by religion in the cases we're talking about? Take the Catholic priests who preach the sinfulness of condom use as an example. Apart from all the sick pedophiles, I'm sure there are some 'good' Catholic priests who do bad things.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Even terrorists are often 'moral' and kind people.
Sure, but my point was that someone who was born or conditioned to be a fanatic is equally likely to become fanatical about something else, if religion doesn't catch him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodo25
Charles Manson and Timothy McVeigh needed no religion.
Priests who preach condoms being evil are just misguided rather than evil. In one way, they're quite right - abstinence, marriage and fidelity are almost 100% foolproof ways of avoiding HIV, but it isn't realistic, because humans don't work like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodo25
I think that the anti-condom plans and paedophilia are both more the result of the idiotic "celibacy" rules for the priesthood.
Well, the meaning of "terrorist" is politically charged for starters. Nelson Mandela was a terrorist under any meaning of the word, but he's internationally respected as a freedom fighter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodo25
One man's meat...
"but I'm very familiar with the rise of the Soviet Uniton. I don't see any irony at all."
I was hoping you wouldn't say this. {edit}