Simon Paynton

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 1,834 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #31027

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    Judge Judy:  I don’t want to make an idiot out of someone if I don’t have to.

    Defendant:  that’s fair.

    #31026

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    But the point is, whether it’s the greatest good for the greatest number, or maximising happiness (probably the same thing) – an injustice has been done to one person, therefore the situation is unfair.

    I’m saying that for justice to be done, each person has to be reasonably happy with the utility they have received.  If the majority has benefited from one innocent person’s unjust misfortune, then the majority are not reasonably happy, but unreasonably happy.  The innocent person is reasonably unhappy.  So, overall, a crime has been done, even if it makes the majority happy.

    “Reasonable” means taking other ethical principles into account.  It’s effectively the same as “the maximum benefit and minimum harm available” to someone.  If there was a choice over whether to frame an innocent person, then they didn’t need to be framed, more benefit was available to them, and the principle of fairness has been violated.

    the agreed laws of society should be dispensed without emotion as if with a blindfold on.

    It depends on the emotions.  There are ethical emotions like a desire for fairness, and these need to be taken into account.  What also needs to be taken into account is the effect on the victim.

    How does Paul Bloom’s “rational compassion” work?  I think probably he’s talking about justice or fairness, which can be reduced to a rational formula (maximum benefit and minimum harm available to all concerned or affected).

    #31023

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    This is a good question to which I have returned.  “Fairness” or “justice” is made up of each concerned individual’s feelings.  If one person concerned has reasonable grounds not to be happy with the benefit or harm they have received (utilitarianism), then fairness (justice) has been violated.  Thus, justice and utilitarianism are connected.

    It is true that utilitarianism could conflict with other principles, like rights, because it focuses on a narrow conception of benefit and harm.  But we can define benefit to be thriving; “utility” (what you find useful); or goal achievement, and rights are covered under these definitions.

    #31008

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    Here’s my favourite stoner jam, a compilation of my favourite DJ, Klangkunst, that I put together.  (Might need to download file.)

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/j5jfogby9bfcdbi/KlangKunst%20edit.wav?dl=0

    Carl Cox rocks!

    #30983

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    For me, repentance means to change one’s mind about what one is doing: what I previously did and enjoyed, I now publicly admit is wrong.  If I was a wife beater, and then had a change of heart and turned over a new leaf, and publicly stated this, I would be repenting.

    #30933

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    Surely, and I’m no expert, Hilbert space is theoretical, a set of potential states, and therefore not real.

    #30922

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    Perhaps they would distort each other if they came near, or set up shock waves in each other if they bumped together.

    #30920

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    I think that Michael is trying to show that it’s only possible for a single outcome to happen, instead of multiple outcomes.

    Presumably, that’s within one universe.  Multiple universes implies multiple realities.  The multiverse theory is not so far fetched.

    #30915

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    Another interesting programme, about the children of Catholic priests, what life is like for them, and how the Church deals with it.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000gtnw

    #30905

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    Dualism is the problem, not consciousness.

    Ludwig Wittgenstein thought that all philosophical problems are due to nothing but conceptual confusion. As he saw it, the aim of philosophy is solely to “show the fly the way out of the fly-bottle”. I find this a deeply dispiriting view of philosophy in general.

    Is it really dispiriting?  I think it’s rather accurate – like finding a mathematical proof.

    #30904

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    As a contrast to “woke”, here’s a very good programme on BBC World Service featuring two feminist academics talking about “toxic masculinity” etc.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3cszj2z

    #30893

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    Very interesting programme on BBC Radio 4 about “woke” culture.  Features interviews with Helen Pluckrose.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000gkwc

    #30891

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    mankind can not be written off as self centered

    Take a look at this scatter plot, which shows the dark (basically, selfish) vs. light (unselfish) scores of 1518 people.   It shows that most people are unselfish.

    #30887

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    #30858

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    I’m seeing virtually no-one, and sending out applications to agents to get my book published, but I keep getting knocked back because I don’t have qualifications, so nobody will take me seriously.  However, my tarot reader promised eventual success, passing with flying colours and making a living out of it.  She already predicted that three guys would help me out professionally, and this has happened.

    Things aren’t too different for me than usual.  It must be difficult for people with small children.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 1,834 total)