Sunday School

Sunday School September 10th 2023

This topic contains 77 replies, has 8 voices, and was last updated by  TheEncogitationer 9 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 78 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #50184

    When you adjust for this fact, then number of children killed by firearms in 2020 drops from 4357 to 2270…….

    Phew! what a relief to know this.  Only one child on average killed by a bullet ever 4 hours instead of every 2 hours,  even adjusting for the leap year.

    #50190

    Davis
    Moderator

    Deontological ethical systems (especially some more modern versions of them) of which Kant’s ethical system is an example, is the strongest ethical system there is. While it is not always practical (and no one ever said it isn’t) it demonstrates quite clearly that moral laws are formulated for a reason and breaking them (even in anticipation of it working out for a better result) is a subjective experience, one meant to fulfil personal interests at the expense of the integrity of the law. Go ahead and break that law, but don’t pretend that you aren’t doing it, to some extent to fulfil your own interests, even if those interests are out of concern for others or a true belief that it will “work out for the best”.

    I don’t think it is hard to follow your own moral rules most of the time, consistently, acting as though others would. If it is wrong to lie, it is wrong to lie. Doing so anticipating it will work out better (for which you cannot be sure anyways), sounds good in principle but then “better for whom” and how to you reconcile that with the interests of others and the integrity of the very moral law you’ve formulated.

    Again, even Kant admitted it is not “always” practical but no system is except moral systems which are supposed to be practical but allow such subjective flip-flopping and situational tinkering there is little to inform someone what is the moral thing to do in a situation.

    I find the second system worth taking seriously is virtue ethics. Not necessarily because it gives a clear explanation of what to do in particular situations but because finding a moderate response to moral situations is a practical one, and one in which it is difficult to justify taking extreme actions. Don’t be controlling but don’t be a pushover. Don’t be gullible but don’t be a phonetical sceptic. Don’t be a bullshit artist but don’t be an oversharer. Again, it is hard to objectively come up with an answer to specific situations but if you generally follow the modernised versions of virtue ethics, you should generally do well.

    I think a reasonable person should do well under both of those systems. Ethics these days deal most commonly with practical ethics like bioethics, IT related ethics and that of artificial intelligence. They lean more towards virtue ethics than deontological ones, as you cannot expect a hospital to work under unwavering rules in some cases, but you can for others.

    I find other systems such as utilitarianism, received morality (like from the bible), stoicism and many forms of pseudo-folk-morality highly problematic.

    Glad you are delving more deeply into moral systems.

    #50193

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    If I am correct, then deontology and virtue ethics deal with the right (actions) while consequentialism deals with the good (desired consequences).  Both are important in my opinion, and they’re not separate.

    What makes a good ethical system?  One that accurately reflects reality (nature), or one that can tell us what to do?  Or both?

    The ethical system I have come up with, based on evolutionary ethics, is called the goals-methods model.  Everyday morality has a broad joint goal (restoring or achieving mutual benefit) and methods of achieving it (rules, principles, virtues).  The joint goal is definitionally broad yet circumstantially specific.  So, it’s flexible enough and universal enough to cope with everyday life.  In other words, if we want to know what to do, we need to think about the joint goal of restoring or achieving mutual benefit.

    It’s hard to say what is the difference between a moral principle and a moral virtue, except to say that moral principles are more like bean-counting, tallying up, very specifically applied, while virtues are more broad and vague, and can apply outside of the moral sphere.

    #50197

    Davis
    Moderator

    I think that all moral systems deal with actions and consequences. Consequentialism (a highly problematic approach in my opinion) obviously deals with consequences more. I would not characterise deontological systems as focussing on one more than the other. It is a fairly unique system, quite different to the others in many aspects and it includes some aspects that other systems do not.

    True, in deontological systems, it goes against its principles to break a moral law because of potential consequences of not doing so, but that isn’t to say that it doesn’t consider consequences any less. What are the consequences of people breaking rules whenever they feel it is justified because of x, y and z? It’s more complex than just being about behaviour and consequences and being one more than the other.

    #50198

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Reg,

    It means human agents shot children and not one gun law ever stopped a criminal from obtaining a firearm.

    It also means whoever compiled the statistics classifies adults as children and presumably thinks we are all children and need the paternalistic guidance of children.

    It also means those using the statistics to justify violating the rights of individuals who are not guilty of crimes with guns are willing to distort evidence and are not willing to go wherever the evidence leads. No actual child is served by that.

    #50200

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Fellow Unbelievers,

    The lies in your grocery store.

    This story reminds me of the jerk from California who is suing Texas Pete Hot Sauce because it is made in Garner, North Carolina and is engaged in false advertising, even though anyone who can read the ingredients can look near them to clearly see it says the sauce is made in Winston-Salem, North Carolina:

    Makers of Texas Pete hot sauce face lawsuit over product being made in North Carolina
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/food/2022/10/09/texas-pete-hot-sauce-lawsuit-false-advertising/8229619001/

    His next lawsuit will be against Cole’s Texas Toast made in New York City???

    And then there are jerks from the dairy industry wanting the Food and Drug Administration to crack down on makers of soy, oat, nut, and plant-based milk for using the term “milk,” even though no one who has tasted plant-based milk would seriously think it comes from cows:

    Dairy industry battles plant-based ‘milks’
    Tuesday, March 7th, 2017

    Dairy industry battles plant-based ‘milks’

    Someone is not acknowledging the fact that living languages are dynamic and they lack the milk of human kindness. Udderly ridiculous!

    And someone is taking allegations of Misinformation/Disonformation/Malinformation (*Growl!* 🦁) and turned it into a serious grift.

    • This reply was modified 9 months ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: Spelling and addendum
    • This reply was modified 9 months ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: Grammar
    • This reply was modified 9 months ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: Correction, Winston-Salem, not Garner, which is the manufacturer's name
    #50205

    It means human agents shot children and not one gun law ever stopped a criminal from obtaining a firearm.

    It is easy for anyone, not just criminals, to get a firearm. Even dumb criminals have no problem obtaining one. Often child criminals under 7 years of age have no problem finding one before killing a parent or sibling. About 34% of those children had no problem obtaining one before they took their own lives. Even good people with guns are part of the problem. That is, if it is even considered a problem.

    #50206

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    I think that all moral systems deal with actions and consequences.

    We can’t know what consequences are going to be, so we can only act with goals in mind.  Moral principles, right actions, are designed to bring about these goals (i.e., mutual benefit).  So, they’re good in themselves.

    #50207


    Participant

    And then there are jerks from the dairy industry wanting the Food and Drug Administration to crack down on makers of soy, oat, nut, and plant-based milk for using the term “milk,” even though no one who has tasted plant-based milk would seriously think it comes from cows:

    It’s a bit of a strange scenario. The word ‘juice’ is regulated in many places such that products labelled with the term have to stay above a minimum fruit juice content. But this makes sense as companies tried pawning artificially flavoured sugar water off as juice, and it was misleading.

    But with plant-based products, the whole point is differentiation. They don’t brand themselves as dairy milk or animal meat*. There may be edge cases where that happens, but typically, people are buying it specifically because it isn’t dairy or meat or eggs (or whatever it is they are substituting out).

    I guess the only way it would be confusing is if we regularly sold products like almond-flavoured milk (in the same way we sell chocolate milk, strawberry milk, banana milk), but currently, it’s a non-issue.

    I do hope plant-based meats never have to stop being referred to as ‘meat’. I love watching people get bent out of shape about how it’s not real meat.

    #50208

    Unseen
    Participant

    @ Enco

    I’m a little more concerned with what’s called “shrinkflation,” where, instead or raising prices, they give you less.

    Now, a strict libertarian will invoke “buyer beware” and think that anyone who doesn’t read the entire (often quite detailed) label for changes is just stupid. Never mind that doing so would mean also knowing what was on the label before.

    Often, it’s when one comes back to a product after some period of time that one notices the reduction. I’m diabetic and seldom eat candy bars. My favorite has always been Payday, which used to be a big chunk of caramel coated with peanuts. It’s now a sad bar only at most 2/3 the size of the original, probably more like 1/2.

    If you want an example that shows mens rea, there’s the fact that they shrink bit by bit over time. Look at how much space is left over on the spindle holding your toilet paper. TP rolls used to mostly cover the spindle but now there’s probably at least an inch of spindle exposed, unless you’re buying some expensive TP intended for Donald Trump types.

    Recently, I noticed that the mid-sized bag of Lay’s potato chips (between the individual lunch bucket size and the full size) dropped quietly from 8 oz. to 7.5 oz.

    Of course, they didn’t announce in gaudy typography, “New SMALLER Size!!!” Sometimes, the manufacturers will announce “New LOWER Price!!!” when they reduce the quantity by some increment.

    We need labeling requirements to keep producers honest and give consumers info they can access easily while shopping.

    The consumer doesn’t care if a hot sauce comes from Carolina. They care how it tastes. They probably understand that Texas Toast isn’t an attribution of sourcing, it’s toast done Texas-style. In both instances, the word “-style” would probably forestall any legal problems.

    I’ll end with a pro tip: People could save themselves a fair amount of money by getting over any prejudices they may have against store brands. I shop at a chain that’s owned by Kroger, and I’ve found that their house brands (Kroger, Private Selection) are actually pretty good. For example, they offer two steak sauces that are every bit as good as Heinz57 and A1 Steak Sauce. One tastes kinda like Heinz57 and the other kinda like A1 Steak Sauce. I use the house brand dishwasher powder which is about 2/3 the price of Cascade and my dishes come out just as clean.

    #50209

    Unseen
    Participant

    I think that all moral systems deal with actions and consequences.

    Is that true or is it that any system which didn’t do so wouldn’t qualify as a moral system?

    Narcissism is built on a moral system which asks things like How does this affect me? or Does doing this give my enemy an advantage?

    #50210

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    Narcissism is built on a moral system which asks things like How does this affect me? or Does doing this give my enemy an advantage?

    I think narcissism is amoral – competitive – seeking “my” benefit – rather than moral – cooperative – seeking “our” benefit.

    #50211

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Unseen, i agree with all you’ve written in your shrinkflation post. I am seeing shrinkflation detonation. It is really bad.

    Apropos of not much i have always despised cow’s milk. It is pretty weird for an adult to drink milk and then of a different species. I have switched to oat milk and find it not great but better than milk.

    #50212

    Unseen
    Participant

    I think narcissism is amoral – competitive – seeking “my” benefit – rather than moral – cooperative – seeking “our” benefit.

    You’re just proposing a definition, basically, which doesn’t constitute a proof of anything. It’s just you expressing your attitude.

    #50213

    Unseen
    Participant

    Unseen, i agree with all you’ve written in your shrinkflation post. I am seeing shrinkflation detonation. It is really bad. Apropos of not much i have always despised cow’s milk. It is pretty weird for an adult to drink milk and then of a different species. I have switched to oat milk and find it not great but better than milk.

    I think bovine milk is disgusting, except when in coffee, ice cream, cheese, etc. Mammary glands like human breasts or bovine udders are structurally modified sweat glands and are present in both sexes, but usually are functional only in the female.

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 78 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.