Easy Truth

I don't know the origins of the Trolley problem analogy, but I assume that it refers to what the government should do i.e. do nothing. Going against the common thought process which is: do what is best for the "most". Keep most of them alive. There is some merit to that thought process, as it is used in the military and in triage situations. But a country is not a military organization and we are not in a triage situation where you ignore the ones you think will die. The hardest part of the argument against utilitarianism is to articulate what a society, or country is vs. an organization, as in the military organization. Communicating the fact that: as a country, although we have a president, we are not a business enterprise, with the president being the organizational president trying to do arithmetic calculations about which department to destroy to save others. In that situation, sins of omission do count, the CEO is fired for things that are not in his or her control. Similarly a president is not voted in sometimes because of "not doing something". Nevertheless, the two relationships, president of a corporation vs. president of a country are two different roles with different ethical guidance. The nature of "government to individual relationship" is the crux of the matter. The greatest threat to individualism currently seems to be utilitarianism, i.e. based on the arithmetic (or statistics) … because it can make sense to anyone. I would also hypothesis that it has something to do with herd mentality which has had tremendous survival value, therefore the attraction to it. Doing what most of the herd does is frequently or "usually" the best course of action (until it's not). In that way, the herd can seem to have an interest. The "most" seems to have an evolutionarily caused emotional significance. I also suspect that the solution to the trolley problem is to be a guide in going against a herd mentality bias.

Then the question still comes up: Is the Virtue of honesty in this context refer to one person or more than one person. As in: Is it virtuous to be honest with others, or oneself? It is easily demonstrable that sometimes you must say a lie. But avoiding evasion is a requirement of survival. I wonder if this is referring the the evil of "fraud" rather than lack of honesty. Although fraud has a requirement that honesty does not in that it requires an agreement that there will be honesty. Politically bad or good has to include for whom? Good for the ruler or the subject or both. But I could see that "good politics" or "a good political system" would include a high frequency of honesty between members, for it to function well for everyone.

I've always thought the virtue of honesty in this context was related to avoiding or preventing "evasion" which seemed to be at the root of evil. Was it to "not lie to others"?

Okay, where there is nothing to perceive, perception does not happen. Inside a container that was not filled up, it's empty (by definition). As long as we differentiate between thinking vs. the capability to think. We are capable of perceiving and thinking even without content. Otherwise when the content is present, we would not perceive it. Perception would be meaningless. Which seems to be an affirmation of the primacy of existence over consciousness.

I'm tying to understand "it is not primary" and the best I can do is: "you don't know" unless "you know that you know". So the ability to know that you know, indicates that you know (or is primary). In some ways invalidating the act of perception. Other than that, if you see a two dimensional picture of Selena, you don't know about the depth, so you never experienced it fully. But you know that it is Selena. Does that count as knowing? Isn't the existence of conceptual ability the negation of all this, meaning that that fact you abstracted, you know. Even though you didn't experience every angle, every nuance, everything about the entity.

Is the "experience", an experience of the "self" being a "spatio-temporal being", or is this to imply that everything is a thought?

I suppose both sides, Trump and the Democrats figured that out. Well, the gain of Crimea and easy access to it is of great military advantage to the Russians, and as far as keeping Russia weaker, it is of interest to the opponent. Now, how important it should be, i.e. the risk of nuclear war, I'm not sure. I was puzzled by the attitude of the article in that it's obvious that Ukraine should be held as a buffer state, like Poland was before world war 2 (my interpretation). I can see it as a potential strategy but not clear cut and obvious. It seems it was a political gamble, with the NATO side betting that Russia with it's dependence and interests would not invade. It goes against the idea that if you trade with the opponent that it is less likely that you will go to war with them. A similar question is coming up around our relations with China.

The the question comes up, why can a politically unimportant issue, induce such heavy spending? There has to be some political benefit, otherwise, the support for Ukraine is something that the US population does not care about. Meaning, it will not translate into votes. My suspicion is that it is in fact politically important in some way. Let us say Russia, succeeded in annexing Ukraine. That would be a political disaster for any president or party in power. Similarly, the Covid response most likely was due to the idea that if we have 1 million people dying and we looked like we did nothing, it would be a disaster for us (the party in charge). The fact is that this is politics. "The look of it" has a lot of bearing on how it is reacted to. And most people think that the government should get involved. Otherwise, the only other plausible explanation becomes: there is a conspiracy, that there is a cabal of elites that move the world in the direction that they want. We are blind sheep.

As far as I can see, a treaty with the USSR won't have much standing, since the entity (the USSR) was dissolved. Or does Russia inherit those agreements? It seems like it would amount to a letter of intent, not a contract. Otherwise it would imply that a promise was made and the immoral/guilty party is the entity that promised not to expand NATO. That is the argument that I constantly here from the pro Russian side and … seeing things from the Russian side.

I was referring to the promise that supposedly made by Bush to Putin that NATO would not expand. Meaning there was no such treaty. As far as the Minsk Treaties, I don't mind hearing succinctly who is claimed to have breached it and why.

Let us say that is true. Does that give a nation the right to invade? Why not just do another Crimea if that sliver is the only issue at stake. On one hand the invasion was because the fear of NATO. Now it seems it was because Ukraine was an immoral government. Even with your description, it's aggression would be limited to it's own population. There is no aggression against another country by the Ukraine. Especially when it gave up it's nuclear missiles. And for the west, that is in fact should be the overriding issue. To defend Ukraine's integrity to prove that it is better to give up your nuclear weapons than to keep them. That is our interest at stake. If there was an official treaty, you would have a case. But there is no officially recognized treaty. If there was such a treaty, was it in secret? Was it between only two people? Two heads of state? What are we elevating to a level of "treaty"? The fact is that there has been a cold war going on and an official agreement needs a third party to witness. Both sides should know that.

A fundamental difference in the situation between Cuba and Ukraine is that Cuba had nuclear missiles on it's soil. Ukraine does not. But there is the potential once it does join NATO. Keep in mind after the nuclear devices were taken off of Cuba, the United states did not threaten to invade Cuba for being in the sphere of the Soviet Union. Meaning all sorts of threats existed because of the alliance with the USSR but did not evoke an ultimatum from the US. The Cuban response was specifically taken in response to the missiles "existing" and more being delivered (otherwise the USSR ships could be allowed them to be searched). In the case of the Ukraine, Russia is acting against a potential threat. This type reaction would also be justification for the action that the US took in Iraq. A potential of weapons of mass destruction that turned out to be untrue. They did not exist, yet the sense of being threated is what justified the war. Meanwhile, the US was not ok with Cuba or Grenada or Panama acting against it's interests and took military action. If the US had every right to embargo and invade, then it would be okay for Russia to have done the same thing regarding Ukraine. That is the current justification given for the action by Russia, since the US had a right to react to Cuba and Russia has a right to react to Ukraine. The crux of the matter is: should any country have a right to escalate like that? There is the argument that the US over stepped it's bounds. That would mean Russian also over stepped it's bounds. In that case both the US and Russia should NOT have acted using an ultimatum. So is it okay for the US to have reacted to Cuba the way that it did?

Let us accept the premise that NATO or the united states put pressure, or was threatening enough. Then Russia was retaliating or defending itself against agression. Then one could say that China is defending itself over Taiwan, that the Arabs are defending themselves over Israel, that Iran is defending itself over what happened a long time ago. And then in turn, the west is defending itself against them defending themselves. NATO is a threat, it is meant to be a threat. At the heart of the argument is: NATO should not be a threat. Is it now a bigger threat since more countries have joined it? Should we now expect more violence from Russia? Is it more justified now? The case has to be made that Russia had a right to use violence at this stage of the game. Or shall we say Putin has a right to do that. The west set up a coup in Ukraine, fine. Russia set up an election to separate Crimea. Why not do that again? Why get hundreds of thousands of people killed and bring the world closer to a nuclear accidental war? The undeniable fact is that any country that makes territorial claims that it expects through violence is a threat. China is a threat to almost all countries surrounding it. That is why they are all beefing up their militaries. Do we have that happening with the US and its neighbors? No because there are no territorial claims. There has not been any threat of violence from NATO, only an allowance of countries joining. That is what people and the press see. What are they missing?

So, we are to believe that a Nazi regime will tolerate a Jewish president. I guess these are the good kind of Nazis we hear about. With this reasoning, NATO should in fact be frightened. It means that Russia would drive into the neighbors of Ukraine to create the buffer zone that it would supposedly need. (since military strategy requires he go "much further") No wonder, they are all beefing up their militaries. Putin obviously did not mean to occupy the capital Kyiv. He obviously did not mean to invade Ukraine. It is because of his benevolent nature, that he is in retreat right now. Tell me more, I'm willing to believe anything because I'm not a "proper" military expert.

The over ridding issue is that Putin did not try to protect the lives of those in the sliver of land between Russia and the Ukraine. If your perception had merit we should have seen Putin stop at the line where "those" people were in mortal danger. But he went all the way to the capital. So your position is that the west should have allowed a separation of that sliver because their lives were in danger. If in fact, their lives were in danger, you would have a point. But you have to show that in fact they were in mortal danger. If they were not in mortal danger, then Putin is the one who did not care about human lives, trying to take more than just a sliver. Beyond that, the narrative that they are Nazi's with a Jewish president is preposterous.

There is also the interests of all other nations to uphold a certain ethical stance. They also have something at stake that can and should influence the direction.

The provocation argument has a serious flaw in that: There seems to be some sort of inherent or objective standard of where the lines should exist and that the west provoked Putin. If it is based on some history, then the overriding issue that effects our long term security is the fact that when the Soviet Union Broke up, Ukraine had nuclear weapons and gave them up for the implicit assurance that it would be safer without them. If in fact the west does not protect Ukraine, any country that will want to develop and or keep nuclear weapons. If we defend Ukraine, any country that wants to develop nuclear weapons will know that it is better off, or will be defended if it gave them up. Now if in fact Ukraine itself became a rogue nation invading other countries, then this implicit protection should be ignored. If the argument is that we supported a coup, then all that would mean is that Putin also has a right to support a coup. Currently Putin has chosen a war, not a clandestine coup. The other issue is the idea that you can change borderlines without a voluntary deal. The idea that NATO is expanding, as if NATO is gobbling up nations, like it is invading them, is a false narrative. Nations are requesting to join. This is through voluntary means. If they join, NATO expands, legitimately and in a morally sound way. The idea that Putin has a right to have the current members of NATO not allow any new members is an overstepping. The argument here seems to be that if a nation gives you an ultimatum regarding something you are doing, stop doing what you are doing. That seems to be what Putin did, he simply gave an ultimatum. We can't pay ransoms or appease a bully. Now if we did meddle, then there is a corresponding right for Putin to meddle and he has done far more by absorbing Crimea. Again, if Ukraine had kept its nuclear weapons, Crimea would have stayed Ukrainian. If there was a judge, in a world court, the final judgement would be, Russia get out of Ukraine and let's settle this thing through negotiation. One way or the other, Putin would have to get out.

But the systems are there to protect individual rights for the most part. Granted that it has eroded but we still can communicate without opposition by the government.

The Pro-Putin argument seems to be that Russia was aggressed on and that it is retaliating. But the aggression from Ukraine can only be described as a threat of aggression, rather than actual aggression. In the case of Putin, the aggression is physical. Now in terms of who benefits right now, wars usually will deliver benefits to many nefarious entities. It always has and always will. To someone who is NOT "in the know", like myself, Russia attacked and Ukraine. The Ukrainian regime did not fall apart like Iraq. People are willing to die for their country so Ukraine is not a population that wants to join Russia. In other words it does not look like NATO etc. are forcing the Ukrainians to fight for their territory. So with that in mind, and the mobilization, it would be good to know what an appropriate negotiated settlement would should look like in the eyes of the pro-Russia side.

And that is the crux of the issue. It can't be proven. And it can't be known if the vaccine will kill someone or not. Now in that situation, I think you would agree that there is no justification to force a vaccination. Unless … there is a utilitarian reason … as in we'll loose some people, by the vast majority will be better off.

Exactly, and this is when ALL are not carriers. The "SOME who are not carriers" are being forced to do something they don't want to do, when they will not do the "wrong" that they are being accused of "possibly" doing. Now why is it justified to treat those people like that?

So you are including accidents that one is responsible for. Like car accidents or even someone falling when they are on your property. And there we get insurance to handle it. Or the owner has to pay up compensation. But in this case the compensation is for actual injury. An inspector cannot detect all risks. And those risks that should have been dealt with are considered negligence and the person is liable. So it seems that a carrier of Covid should have known about a vaccine that is perfect, and did not inject is liable. 1. In the case of Covid, the vaccine is not perfect so it does not apply. 2. In the case of a vaccine that is perfect, the person who is infected is at fault, because they did not get the vaccine, they were negligent. Again, a mandate treats it as if everyone is a Carrier. Like everyone is a criminal (or potential criminal).

The only pure examples I could think of is regarding government employees and military. But socialized medicine also forced the whole hospital system to comply or else. So the water is muddied for examining the principles involved. It's like arguing for a free society, or an Objectivist type system, where someone will ask "has such a thing ever existed". But one can image some hospitals catering to people who are unvaccinated and some not. The military is different in that it is in fact run on utilitarian rules (although based on contract). As in a few are sacrificed for a larger force. The fundamental question here is "is it ever right for a monopoly on force to ever initiate force on it's population?". In the name of what is good of course. Or is the ultimate good, the respect of individual rights? It is good to have a dam built so you have to pay taxes because you will benefit. It is good to defend our country so you should be drafted and push the "potential" enemy far away from our shores. It is good to have an educated population so money will be taken away from you to pay for public schools. It is good to have food on the table so we will forcibly take from those who have more than a certain amount to pay for that. etc.

Then what is your definition of a mandate to vaccinate?