Idiot Richard Dawkins opens his mouth again: "It's immoral not to abort Down's Syndrome babies"
09-18-2014
, 02:14 PM
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 877
I get it now. You are clearly talking nonsense.
09-18-2014
, 02:31 PM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 30,132
LOL -- I assumed that when you said "proof by consensus" you were unaware of the words that you were actually using and that you meant whether there were true mathematical statements discovered at multiple moments in time independently by multiple cultures.
But if you really meant "proof by consensus" then I think your question is irrelevant to the point.
Would you like to address the actual claim on the table?
But if you really meant "proof by consensus" then I think your question is irrelevant to the point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by me
I'm basing it on the fact that there are some underlying cross-cultural values that have arisen independently at multiple points in time. Just as there's an underlying mathematical reality in which people keep discovering the same mathematical conclusions across cultures and across time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by you
Is this kind of epistemology generally applicable?
Quote:
Originally Posted by me
It's certainly applicable to many mathematical claims. And for other observations of the universe, many of the conclusions reached have been broadly accurate.
09-18-2014
, 02:45 PM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 30,132
In mathematical proof, we don't actually prove that statements are somehow "true" in some real sense. Just "true" relative to some set of assumptions. While those assumptions can be formalized (such as Peano's Axioms to describe the natural numbers), for most of history those assumptions were simply "natural assumptions" based on observations about the world.
Given that people have independently arrived at the same conclusions about mathematical statements without the benefit of a shared intellectual foundation (just their natural assumptions), this points at the existence of an underlying mathematical reality in which there are actually these "true" observations. That there is at least some sort of "truth" that's there that doesn't rely on us all having the same axiomatic systems -- just something that is "discovered" to be true and was only formalized later.
(Indeed, the formal axioms are merely declarations of the things that we observe to be true -- or variants of such things -- so that the axioms are built from our experiences first before taking a life of their own in abstraction to other mathematical objects.)
That idea forms the basis of an epistemological approach that can be used for other types of claims based on "natural assumptions" based on observations about the world. Rather than those assumptions being of a mathematical content, those assumptions can contain ethical/moral content or physical content (natural physical intuition -- which we know that babies have*).
Therefore, it's reasonable to take that collection of natural assumptions and their conclusions and believe that there is something trustworthy about those observations.
(* As an aside, the same is known for babies and math.)
Last edited by Aaron W.; 09-18-2014 at 02:51 PM.
09-18-2014
, 04:06 PM
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 877
If we have a mathematical model that seems to work well, i.e. it holds up to repeated observations, it does it's job without clashing with any of our other beliefs, no one has found any critical flaws with it, we don't have a model that works just as well but with fewer demands, etc. then we tentatively consider it a "true" or accurate model. Over time if it holds up, it gains credibility. The more people who are aware of it but unable to find flaws with it, the more credibility it gains.
While the fact that multiple people thought of something is interesting, it does not lend much/any weight to the model.
You can apply this to people's ideas about how people ought to behave, or how they would prefer people behave, or about what allows a city or a society to flourish, or about what maximizes human potential, or about what minimizes human suffering, etc., but how can you apply this to what is right or wrong? How can we ever test the veracity of a model of morality, or add evidence in support of it?
It seems that you are being inconsistent. You pick mathematics as your champion, because with mathematics your system works. It would not work if you built a mathematical model and tried to intuit knowledge about, say, history, or social studies, based on it. But this is what you are doing with morality. You observe that (apparently) multiple people / cultures have come up with similar moral opinions, but instead of drawing conclusions about how or why people / societies come up with certain laws or customs (i.e. group dynamics, psychology, neuroscience, etc), you are suggesting that the opinions themselves are probably rooted in reality in such a way that they are true or false.
I believe it is a bit like saying that because being massaged feels good, it is probably true that chiropractors can cure illness by giving you a good squeeze or twist.
While the fact that multiple people thought of something is interesting, it does not lend much/any weight to the model.
You can apply this to people's ideas about how people ought to behave, or how they would prefer people behave, or about what allows a city or a society to flourish, or about what maximizes human potential, or about what minimizes human suffering, etc., but how can you apply this to what is right or wrong? How can we ever test the veracity of a model of morality, or add evidence in support of it?
It seems that you are being inconsistent. You pick mathematics as your champion, because with mathematics your system works. It would not work if you built a mathematical model and tried to intuit knowledge about, say, history, or social studies, based on it. But this is what you are doing with morality. You observe that (apparently) multiple people / cultures have come up with similar moral opinions, but instead of drawing conclusions about how or why people / societies come up with certain laws or customs (i.e. group dynamics, psychology, neuroscience, etc), you are suggesting that the opinions themselves are probably rooted in reality in such a way that they are true or false.
I believe it is a bit like saying that because being massaged feels good, it is probably true that chiropractors can cure illness by giving you a good squeeze or twist.
09-18-2014
, 04:16 PM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 30,132
I need to pause you for a moment because you're changing the underlying structure here. A mathematical model and the "proof by consensus" comment are in completely different realms. What you are describing here is, in fact, a proof by consensus. We keep agreeing with it, and so we keep perpetuating it as a meaningful description of the universe. But that important detail addressed...
Sure. You will notice that nowhere did I imply that everything that people agreed with was automatically true.
You seem to be missing the fundamental argument. I'm arguing for the EXISTENCE of a moral reality. I'm not arguing at all (at the moment) about how one goes about verifying moral facts.
No. Not at all. And the way that it works as a mathematical system (in the form I've described it) has very little bearing on the concept of a "mathematical model" in the form that you've introduced.
This makes even less sense in the context of my actual argument.
Quote:
... that seems to work well, i.e. it holds up to repeated observations, it does it's job without clashing with any of our other beliefs, no one has found any critical flaws with it, we don't have a model that works just as well but with fewer demands, etc. then we tentatively consider it a "true" or accurate model. Over time if it holds up, it gains credibility. The more people who are aware of it but unable to find flaws with it, the more credibility it gains.
While the fact that multiple people thought of something is interesting, it does not lend much/any weight to the model.
While the fact that multiple people thought of something is interesting, it does not lend much/any weight to the model.
Quote:
You can apply this to people's ideas about how people ought to behave, or how they would prefer people behave, or about what allows a city or a society to flourish, or about what maximizes human potential, or about what minimizes human suffering, etc., but how can you apply this to what is right or wrong? How can we ever test the veracity of a model of morality, or add evidence in support of it?
Quote:
It seems that you are being inconsistent. You pick mathematics as your champion, because with mathematics your system works. It would not work if you built a mathematical model and tried to intuit knowledge about, say, history, or social studies, based on it. But this is what you are doing with morality. You observe that (apparently) multiple people / cultures have come up with similar moral opinions, but instead of drawing conclusions about how or why people / societies come up with certain laws or customs (i.e. group dynamics, psychology, neuroscience, etc), you are suggesting that the opinions themselves are probably rooted in reality in such a way that they are true or false.
Quote:
I believe it is a bit like saying that because being massaged feels good, it is probably true that chiropractors can cure illness by giving you a good squeeze or twist.
09-18-2014
, 05:12 PM
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 877
Quote:
I need to pause you for a moment because you're changing the underlying structure here. A mathematical model and the "proof by consensus" comment are in completely different realms. What you are describing here is, in fact, a proof by consensus. We keep agreeing with it, and so we keep perpetuating it as a meaningful description of the universe. But that important detail addressed...
Math concepts can be proven. Claiming that these concepts map to the real world can be tentatively "proven" with evidence as I have described. Moral opinions, systems, etc., can have certain outcomes. We can observe this, make predictions, etc. But what evidence or system can be used to show, even tentatively, that this maps to something more than just personal preferences?
09-18-2014
, 05:38 PM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 30,132
And I don't need consensus to assert that I believe math corresponds to something real. I can reach that conclusion on the basis of my own observations about the behaviors of mathematical objects and how they've revealed themselves through history.
Quote:
You didn't specify. Do you have a heuristic or rule for deciding?
Quote:
How do reason and experience reveal truth in general? You have a baseline set of life experiences that are evaluated in a mental framework that is guided by heuristics about the nature of those experiences.
...
In general, our concept of truth is cobbled together from experiences that somehow correspond and connect to each other. A cup falls when I drop it. An apple falls when I drop it. It seems like everything falls when I drop it, so therefore we have truth that things fall when we drop it (except when they don't fall, like helium balloons). But this is sufficient to generalize a concept about things falling that is (mostly) true that leads us to the idea of gravity -- and then the exceptions can be dealt with as they arise to give us other concepts.
Similarly, there seem to be moral claims that fit within our baseline experiences. We understand in our moral intuitions that killing people randomly seems wrong. In fact, as we reflect on it further, we find killing in general seems to be against our base moral intuitions so often that we conclude that there is a general moral fact about killing people (that we shouldn't do it) which can be phrased in some form like a moral principle that affirms the preservation of life.
...
In general, our concept of truth is cobbled together from experiences that somehow correspond and connect to each other. A cup falls when I drop it. An apple falls when I drop it. It seems like everything falls when I drop it, so therefore we have truth that things fall when we drop it (except when they don't fall, like helium balloons). But this is sufficient to generalize a concept about things falling that is (mostly) true that leads us to the idea of gravity -- and then the exceptions can be dealt with as they arise to give us other concepts.
Similarly, there seem to be moral claims that fit within our baseline experiences. We understand in our moral intuitions that killing people randomly seems wrong. In fact, as we reflect on it further, we find killing in general seems to be against our base moral intuitions so often that we conclude that there is a general moral fact about killing people (that we shouldn't do it) which can be phrased in some form like a moral principle that affirms the preservation of life.
Quote:
I'm not missing that point. I'm showing that your evidence for that existence claim is actually not evidence at all.
Quote:
Math concepts can be proven. Claiming that these concepts map to the real world can be tentatively "proven" with evidence as I have described.
Quote:
Moral opinions, systems, etc., can have certain outcomes. We can observe this, make predictions, etc.
Quote:
But what evidence or system can be used to show, even tentatively, that this maps to something more than just personal preferences?
Quote:
You're welcome to "suspect [what is] going on" all you want. But all you're basically doing is saying that people who claim to have a moral philosophy that makes truth claims liars. They don't *really* have a moral philosophy, they're just working off a feeling in their gut.
09-18-2014
, 10:59 PM
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 877
I think your argument really does come down to nonsense.
I do not see any reason to believe that your "base moral intuitions" are tapping into something that is external to your own physiology and psychology. It is how you feel or react to various stimuli.
What basis do you have for connecting it to some reality that is external to yourself? Or if you want to add in as supporting evidence that other people sometimes agree with you, what basis do you have for connecting it to something other than one of many different ways that human beings can react or feel?
Your math intuitions can teach us something about math.
But "base moral intuitions" is a loaded phrase, stacking the deck, begging the question, because all you really have are your own feelings, visceral reactions, logical conclusions, etc, about what is right and what is wrong, and that can only teach us about your feelings and visceral reactions and opinions, not something else outside of you.
It reads to me like you are very directly making the argument that because being massaged by a chiropractor feels good, this constitutes evidence that chiropractors can heal illnesses, as they claim.
I do not see any reason to believe that your "base moral intuitions" are tapping into something that is external to your own physiology and psychology. It is how you feel or react to various stimuli.
What basis do you have for connecting it to some reality that is external to yourself? Or if you want to add in as supporting evidence that other people sometimes agree with you, what basis do you have for connecting it to something other than one of many different ways that human beings can react or feel?
Your math intuitions can teach us something about math.
But "base moral intuitions" is a loaded phrase, stacking the deck, begging the question, because all you really have are your own feelings, visceral reactions, logical conclusions, etc, about what is right and what is wrong, and that can only teach us about your feelings and visceral reactions and opinions, not something else outside of you.
It reads to me like you are very directly making the argument that because being massaged by a chiropractor feels good, this constitutes evidence that chiropractors can heal illnesses, as they claim.
09-19-2014
, 12:00 AM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 30,132
Quote:
What basis do you have for connecting it to some reality that is external to yourself?
Quote:
Or if you want to add in as supporting evidence that other people sometimes agree with you, what basis do you have for connecting it to something other than one of many different ways that human beings can react or feel?
Quote:
Your math intuitions can teach us something about math.
But "base moral intuitions" is a loaded phrase, stacking the deck, begging the question, because all you really have are your own feelings, visceral reactions, logical conclusions, etc, about what is right and what is wrong, and that can only teach us about your feelings and visceral reactions and opinions, not something else outside of you.
But "base moral intuitions" is a loaded phrase, stacking the deck, begging the question, because all you really have are your own feelings, visceral reactions, logical conclusions, etc, about what is right and what is wrong, and that can only teach us about your feelings and visceral reactions and opinions, not something else outside of you.
Quote:
It reads to me like you are very directly making the argument that because being massaged by a chiropractor feels good, this constitutes evidence that chiropractors can heal illnesses, as they claim.
09-23-2014
, 12:25 PM
Quote:
This is one of the criticisms that Rand received. That it is merely an ideal, but when this is put in action, it is ruined by human behaviour which doesn't meet up to the selfless standard this model assumes.
VeeD has said that his model splits from that of Rand, and I'm also curious to see how his personal views reconcile some of these things.
VeeD has said that his model splits from that of Rand, and I'm also curious to see how his personal views reconcile some of these things.
I've talked about 'love' already, although I haven't indulged your insulting example.
Last edited by VeeDDzz`; 09-23-2014 at 12:38 PM.
09-23-2014
, 01:49 PM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 30,132
There's also the empirical observation about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, the decreasing levels of upward economic mobility as a result of this increasing gap, and the ongoing racial/gender gaps that are not resolved by this approach.
Quote:
I've talked about 'love' already, although I haven't indulged your insulting example.
Also, what if the parents don't love the child? What if they decide after a few days that the sleepless nights are too much of a burden and they'd rather not deal with it? How does your moral system address this?
09-23-2014
, 02:20 PM
Quote:
This isn't a particularly good argument. It falls into the category of "vague and unmeasurable."
There's also the empirical observation about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, the decreasing levels of upward economic mobility as a result of this increasing gap, and the ongoing racial/gender gaps that are not resolved by this approach.
There's also the empirical observation about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, the decreasing levels of upward economic mobility as a result of this increasing gap, and the ongoing racial/gender gaps that are not resolved by this approach.
This doesn't mean much about Ayn Rand, whose significance as a philosopher is almost always exaggerated by her followers (at least partially due to the atrocious understanding of other philosophers she exhibited herself).
09-23-2014
, 02:37 PM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 30,132
Quote:
On a global scale, this is of course not true in an absolute sense. In fact, the global poverty rate has halved in the last 20 years, from 43% in 1990 to 21% in 2010, mostly due to economic growth (as argued by the Economist).
Quote:
If you believe, as I do, that that higher economic growth is encouraged by capitalism, then you should actually be somewhat sympathetic to the larger point being made by VeeDDzz` (at least about value of capitalism and science, not about the great man view of history).
Quote:
People can best help those around them, by first helping themselves. If you achieve something great (need for achievement), you will give back to humanity far more than if you donate 50% of every single pay-check to charity.
09-23-2014
, 02:39 PM
Then the parents get rid of the child duh? What do you suggest happens? The parents are forced to raise the child and so for the next 18yrs they hate the child and their life to the point where they abuse the child or worse on a daily basis? Why would you want to put a child through that?
09-23-2014
, 03:20 PM
But if anything, this only highlights the importance of the fall in the global poverty rate and its usefulness in measuring the economic status of individuals and families. For the majority of people, wealth doesn't actually do much to distinguish significant differences in economic status. However, there obviously are such differences, since some of these people are literally starving to death or are unable to provide for basic amenities like shelter, clothing, and so on, while others do have adequate supply of basic amenities.
The global poverty rate is one way to measure this, and it would seem to me to measure the most distressing aspect of poverty: Those on the very bottom of the economic scale and who suffer the most from deprivation.
The fall in the global poverty rate is one of the greatest humanitarian triumphs of recent decades. We should be paying close attention to it and to make sure to keep doing whatever it is we are doing that is contributing to that decrease. If that is capitalism, globalization, etc., then, in my opinion, we should continue to support those things.
Quote:
I agree that higher economic growth is encouraged by capitalism. I don't agree that the benefit to humanity clearly follows in the terms that VeeDDzz` used:
09-23-2014
, 03:41 PM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 30,132
A measure of what "poor" and "rich" mean.
In the absolute sense, I'm pretty sure wealth has increased globally, but I don't have any specific data sets to verify that. I don't know how wealth is tabulated when including things such as national debts and that sort of thing.
I'm not going to disagree that decreasing global poverty is a good thing. At the very bottom of the scale, it's probably the most important measure. But in terms of what I think VeeDzz is thinking about, income isn't really the thing that can be seen as the driver, and waving our hands and talking about decreasing poverty isn't going to make the connection any stronger.
I'm skeptical of the claim that some sort of vague "achieve something great" as an individual does more than directly funding organizations that are striving to do something great. Very few people actually achieve something so great that it manifests itself in a global increase in wealth (or income), whereas many local organizations accomplish those ends on a much more regular basis on funding from donations.
Quote:
I would be curious if you are aware of any datasets saying that the poor or the middle class have less wealth now than in the past. I would be surprised if that were true, although I know that the vast majority of wealth is still held by the wealthiest (the bottom half of the world's population owns less than 1% of the world's wealth and the top 1% holds 46%).
Quote:
But if anything, this only highlights the importance of the fall in the global poverty rate and its usefulness in measuring the economic status of individuals and families. For the majority of people, wealth doesn't actually do much to distinguish significant differences in economic status. However, there obviously are such differences, since some of these people are literally starving to death or are unable to provide for basic amenities like shelter, clothing, and so on, while others do have adequate supply of basic amenities.
The global poverty rate is one way to measure this, and it would seem to me to measure the most distressing aspect of poverty: Those on the very bottom of the economic scale and who suffer the most from deprivation.
The fall in the global poverty rate is one of the greatest humanitarian triumphs of recent decades. We should be paying close attention to it and to make sure to keep doing whatever it is we are doing that is contributing to that decrease. If that is capitalism, globalization, etc., then, in my opinion, we should continue to support those things.
The global poverty rate is one way to measure this, and it would seem to me to measure the most distressing aspect of poverty: Those on the very bottom of the economic scale and who suffer the most from deprivation.
The fall in the global poverty rate is one of the greatest humanitarian triumphs of recent decades. We should be paying close attention to it and to make sure to keep doing whatever it is we are doing that is contributing to that decrease. If that is capitalism, globalization, etc., then, in my opinion, we should continue to support those things.
Quote:
What exactly is it that you are skeptical of here? That capitalism is accurately described as "helping yourself"? The claim about the relative merits of giving money to charity vs. "achieving something great"?
09-23-2014
, 03:47 PM
I think I would not be skeptical that those who accomplish "something great" end up accomplishing more than if they had just given away a fixed percentage. What I would be skeptical of is the conclusion that therefore no one should favor giving in the smaller way. Because not enough people will achieve something great enough to justify that, I don't think.
Although it is true of course that before you can really help others economically you have to be in a position to help, so that "people can best help those around them by first helping themselves" is certainly true. There is still a question about at what point you've helped yourself enough
Although it is true of course that before you can really help others economically you have to be in a position to help, so that "people can best help those around them by first helping themselves" is certainly true. There is still a question about at what point you've helped yourself enough
09-23-2014
, 03:57 PM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 16,782
Peter Singer in his ted talk discusses students who had switched career choice in order to maximise earnings in order to donate. The effective altruist movement is still in its earlier stages but it does seem a most of the money moved at Givewell is still from the larger donors. It may be the life you can save and others do more money through smaller donors but it definitely seems that a few very successful people can make a pretty significant difference.
I think that Original Position is correct though and that the vast gains made towards ending global poverty are due to a natural increases in wealth and I'm not sure how much individuals matter on that scale.
I think that Original Position is correct though and that the vast gains made towards ending global poverty are due to a natural increases in wealth and I'm not sure how much individuals matter on that scale.
09-23-2014
, 04:39 PM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 30,132
Quote:
Peter Singer in his ted talk discusses students who had switched career choice in order to maximise earnings in order to donate. The effective altruist movement is still in its earlier stages but it does seem a most of the money moved at Givewell is still from the larger donors. It may be the life you can save and others do more money through smaller donors but it definitely seems that a few very successful people can make a pretty significant difference.
So I don't doubt that there are some people making the switch, and that a limited number of people can make the switch and make everything a little bit better, but there's a limitation to what can be done by doing that. Problems are not generally solved simply by throwing financial resources at them.
09-24-2014
, 01:43 AM
Quote:
A measure of what "poor" and "rich" mean.
In the absolute sense, I'm pretty sure wealth has increased globally, but I don't have any specific data sets to verify that. I don't know how wealth is tabulated when including things such as national debts and that sort of thing.
In the absolute sense, I'm pretty sure wealth has increased globally, but I don't have any specific data sets to verify that. I don't know how wealth is tabulated when including things such as national debts and that sort of thing.
As such, if the global poverty rate is decreasing so dramatically, the evidence actually indicates that in fact the poor are not getting poorer, but actually richer--in fact, richer at rather a healthy clip from a historical perspective.
Quote:
I'm not going to disagree that decreasing global poverty is a good thing. At the very bottom of the scale, it's probably the most important measure. But in terms of what I think VeeDzz is thinking about, income isn't really the thing that can be seen as the driver, and waving our hands and talking about decreasing poverty isn't going to make the connection any stronger.
Quote:
I'm skeptical of the claim that some sort of vague "achieve something great" as an individual does more than directly funding organizations that are striving to do something great. Very few people actually achieve something so great that it manifests itself in a global increase in wealth (or income), whereas many local organizations accomplish those ends on a much more regular basis on funding from donations.
Anyway, this is all speculative, but it seems to me that you could have recognizably moral priorities such that investing in certain successful companies could do more for the long-term benefit of humanity than giving that money to charity.
09-24-2014
, 01:59 AM
Nonetheless, I am not saying people shouldn't give little when they can, but they definitely shouldn't give in circumstances where those resources can aid to their own advantage - in pursuing their own achievements. I also understand that this is all a bit arbitrary but that's philosophy for you.
09-24-2014
, 02:07 AM
Actually. They are. With financial resources comes jobs. With jobs comes employment. With employment comes goals. With goals and multiple minds woking toward those goals: things get achieved. P.S. it's not always in this exact order but you get the gist. Also I understand that not all goals are for the betterment of mankind, but most contribute in some small way - even if its simply the creation of wealth and development of a small community.
Last edited by VeeDDzz`; 09-24-2014 at 02:14 AM.
09-24-2014
, 02:28 AM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 30,132
The reason I think wealth is a better measure is because wealth is transferable from one generation to the next, whereas income is not. If you're talking about making long term projections (such as something like "species survival"), I think those values carry more meaning.
Quote:
Thus, since you acknowledge that you don't know the figures about international wealth and the figures on income are widely available, it seems like you should accept that as our current best guide (although: see here for international wealth comparisons).
Also, some reflection seems to suggest that the large success of decreasing poverty (measured by income) comes from China's growing economy. I suspect (though I don't have a direct report to cite as evidence) that gains are much more modest in other countries (countries in Africa and probably India), and that the single big win by the behemoth is probably driving the narrative in an imbalanced way.
Quote:
As such, if the global poverty rate is decreasing so dramatically, the evidence actually indicates that in fact the poor are not getting poorer, but actually richer--in fact, richer at rather a healthy clip from a historical perspective.
Quote:
You should probably be more explicit about what you think VeeDdzz` is talking about then--I usually assume that capitalism and science are exactly the kinds of things that Rand-influenced thinkers are going to praise, and both of those are arguably primary causes to the increase in global GDP.
His clearest expression is this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDzz
[The utilitarian goals are] Goals that ultimately help reduce suffering, through improvements in societal and scientific progress: progress borne out of personal liberty, need for achievement and personal integrity. All three of which are required for the facilitation of up-most progress.
Quote:
But if it is about e.g. starting a company vs. being a social worker, then I think he has a real point.
Quote:
Well, I'm not sure this is the right way to look at it. Sure, most startups fail. But that is not enough to show that they are a worse way to give to charity. After all, it might be a high variance, but also high EV strategy (that is, only one out of five companies succeed, but the return from that one company is high enough, even given the losses on the other four, to beat the return from the less risky charity donations.
Quote:
Anyway, this is all speculative, but it seems to me that you could have recognizably moral priorities such that investing in certain successful companies could do more for the long-term benefit of humanity than giving that money to charity.
09-24-2014
, 02:32 AM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 30,132
Quote:
P.S. it's not always in this exact order but you get the gist. Also I understand that not all goals are for the betterment of mankind, but most contribute in some small way - even if its simply the creation of wealth and development of a small community.
* "Progress borne out of personal liberty, need for achievement and personal integrity" -- And all three are necessary according to you -- yet also not necessary according to you.
09-24-2014
, 02:38 AM
Quote:
There are plenty of examples in which throwing money at a problem doesn't work. Remember "We Are the World"? And the many reports that show that foreign aid in Africa is having a negative effect?
These are the sorts of hedges people make when they know they're wrong, but don't want to sound wrong. "Even if the goals don't actually match the standards set forth*, it all still works in the end."
* "Progress borne out of personal liberty, need for achievement and personal integrity" -- And all three are necessary according to you -- yet also not necessary according to you.
These are the sorts of hedges people make when they know they're wrong, but don't want to sound wrong. "Even if the goals don't actually match the standards set forth*, it all still works in the end."
* "Progress borne out of personal liberty, need for achievement and personal integrity" -- And all three are necessary according to you -- yet also not necessary according to you.
This kind of dichotomous thinking is what academia is currently trying to fix, because a lot of our theorising stems from it, and more often than not, its incorrect and its highly limiting.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE
Powered by:
Hand2Note
Copyright ©2008-2022, Hand2Note Interactive LTD