Eiuol

World Death Rate Holding Steady At 100 Percent

Presuming this might be me, I made it clear I'm not a determinist. I only seem to be, but all I said is I don't say there are distinct forms of causality. All we can do is point out subtypes by pointing out which entity is acting. Yes, logically speaking, having identity means that it has to act in one way at a time. I'm saying based on observing the world, only one CAN happen. Things can and will only act in one way in a specific context - volition refers to choosing a single action by a specific method to make that choice. There are choices because abstracting away the specific method leaves us with volition. We know SOME method is used, but that's it. As a result, we get a concept of volition. If we DON'T abstract away the method, it violates identity by either being wholly determinist, or by granting that you can have NO idea why that particular method was used if insisting on libertarian free will (it could act in multiple ways without regard to circumstances). You did not answer my thought experiment all the way, so that's why you're not getting a satisfactory answer.

Would you please explain what you mean by humane treatment? Does it mean that it is humane to kill an animal for a fur scarf? How do you determine that it's okay to have animal slaves, but not human slaves?

Wait, there's rights qua animals? You're literally claiming animals have rights, but its okay to deny rights! That's a blatant contradiction. Unless of course you think rights are a matter of your ability to wield better force... Besides, how would you know whose rights to protect, and whose rights to ignore? You can't use rationality - and we end up with Singer's point that if a human has rights, so do all animals. Or are you advocating animal rights and Singer's position? I see no question begging. Whose life? A being with a rational capacity. What makes them have that capacity? Their mode of thought. It'd be circular to say having rights is what makes a person rational. The discriminating factor is rational capacity, based on how -humans- need to survive: reason.

Sure, it has DNA, but it isn't a thing that is a human or any animal. Take a fetus and look at it. There really is no distinction of it being alive like an animal. It doesn't process the world or move. It doesn't broadly fit into an animal category since it isn't even aware of anything. We don't even get to the point of asking if a fetus itself is able to be rational at any point! Basically, it's a different sort of organism. I'd need to see an argument that a fetus is the same kind of animal. DNA isn't a relevant distinction, an animal is not just its DNA. Their capacity, as in the right kind of conceptual and neural mechanisms that enable rational thought, is there, despite changing. It's not like they get a new brain by shedding their old brain. There are things a baby can do that animals can't, especially learn language. Many theories exist as to why this is, but they all at least agree that it has to do with specific mechanisms and built-in capacities. I don't mean "having room" for rationality, but right now having all the right mechanisms to become rational - a fetus still needs to form the mechanisms in the first place. Many people call this sense of capacity a cognitive architecture. In practice, all you need to do is consider how babies start learning language right away, while a dog has to be trained. Babies need no explicit instructions, dogs do. Nicky made a good point: "small children are of course just as useless as a goat. But they are working on not being useless. Goats aren't working on that, they're limited to eternal uselessness." I know I'm talking about it in developmental terms or brain science terms, but its for the observations.

A human might be rational or not, but by its nature, has a capacity to be rational. A fetus cannot be rational or not. By its nature, it has no capacity to be rational. A fetus is not a type human. So what I'm saying is that potential entities cannot be treated as though they are the entity. Equally so, potential characteristics cannot be treated as though the entity has the characteristic. But that doesn't say a potential characteristic isn't itself a characteristic. A fetus being a "potential human" is also a characteristic, except in aleph's case, the entity is ALSO treated as having human characteristics right off the bat. I agree that it's a bad test. But so are cries of suffering, or feeling sick from eating it. If that is your test, you've proven animals have rights. No. The difference between us and dogs is one of kind. A dog is not going to create items to live, or make an abstraction as opposed to merely some "sense" of a thought, or even have a type of brain to think about its own thoughts. Yes, a dog understands some words, but in different way than any human. An animal may have "reasoning capabilities" as in problem solving, but that alone doesn't demonstrate a conceptual mode of thought. So I'll work on the tougher question next.

One part of that question is why rational capacity is what counts rather than actually being rational. You'd probably ask why a potential matters here, but not for a fetus having rights. I'm not working to answer this part. What I am answering, though, is why animals don't have a rational capacity. Answering that also answers why a fetus doesn't either, as long as you agree with my reasoning that a fetus is not just a type of person - and assuming a fetus is a person begs the question that a fetus really has a rational capacity. Rational capacity is the capability of being rational by virtue of the right types of neural and cognitive mechanisms being available. A baby has this capacity, although it develops over time. Still, they possess the right mechanisms, that's how a baby learns human language. To be clear, I'm just giving a more detailed explanation of capacity than Rand did, she mostly answered the first question above. Animals like dogs, cows, or alligators don't have the right types of mechanisms. No matter how much you train or teach them, they won't be rational. Their brain literally cannot do it. Their rational capacity can't increase, it's literally not there. You could make a case for elephants and dolphins as some sort of borderline rational capacity, but that's an exhaustive list. As for a baby, their rational capacity doesn't change. In some sense, it does, as there are changes like greater counting ability, but that's similar to adding RAM to a computer. Yes, it does more, but it still has the same general abilities as before. It still computes answers with the same general methods. Compare your current computer to a quantum computer though, and the general method is different. The human method is cognition with concepts. The animal method is something perceptual and some type of calculation (it's not behaviorism). These methods even distinguish babies from animals, despite often having similar abilities. The only way for an animal to cross over into the human method is evolution - it's a potential. However! The animal would be a new species, a new entity entirely.

The best thing is when people say she was rich in Russia! She wasn't. This guy is brilliant:

Sorry, I mis-spoke. I was typing one thing in a different way, and I didn't modify the rest of the sentence with its new logical structure. I think I meant to say "no potential, as a fetus, to be a person that is rational". A fetus has no potential or even sense of rational capacity. A fetus isn't a type of person, it is an entirely different kind of entity. A rational capacity is a potential to be rational, but in a specific way: by virtue of the type of brain humans have, all people have the mechanisms in place to be rational. In terms of rights, we only care about that capacity and potential, a potential characteristic. A fetus, though, doesn't have any mechanisms for rational capacity. To acquire rational capacity, it needs to become a totally different entity. By its nature, a -fetus- doesn't become rational. It's not as though a fetus is merely a "tiny" person, developmentally it isn't a person. If a fetus is potentially rational, then so is sperm, so is an egg, so are the elements that make up sperm, so are the stars those elements came from. The part that matters is we can't treat one entity as a type of entity it might become. Epistemologically, it makes no sense. A potential characteristic, though, doesn't always require becoming a new entity. The problem with aleph's post is that there is no distinction among these differences.

This is bizarre, equal to saying most people are too stupid. Most people implicitly at the least understand the law of identity fine... * A fetus is not a person, but has the potential to be a person. A baby is a type of person, and like a person, has the potential to be rational. What I'm pointing out here is that babies have a potential characteristic. A fetus has no potential to be a person and therefore no potential to be a "rational fetus" at any point. A fetus have a potential to become a different entity entirely. Only the new entity has a potential to be rational. As far as I know, Singer doesn't think rights have to do with rational potential anyway.

No, I am saying the logical structure is the same, where the justification of your action is that since you are at your employer's arbitrary mercy, you are stuck with your situation. Thus, resorting to a typically immoral act is fine, since those employer's aren't rational or worth listening to. I'm not saying you are a Keating, but I'm only seeing Keatingian implications that we may start lying if we want to keep a job from a bad employer. Yes, negatives are to be avoided - the job is the negative. So avoid it by leaving the job. It relates to the OP because whether LoBogola gets fired or not will end up as good. What are the bad consequences? Will he really end up suffering? I'm saying no, no suffering is required. Better to let people act and evaluate their actions than divine what the employer "will" do. Telling the truth would reveal where the people involved stand.

Skipping the inductive parts, I can make my argument clearer. 1) The standard of morality is one's own life. 2) Virtues are the sole means to maintain and pursue life and values. 3) Honesty is a virtue. It means portraying yourself as you are, allowing others to judge you, and to judge yourself. 4) If a person is unable and unwilling to judge rationally, they are not honest. 4a) 2 is made irrelevant to them. 5) If you portray yourself as something you are not, you are not honest. 5a) 2 is made irrelevant to you. 6) A lie is portraying yourself as something you are not. 6a) Lying to 4 means denying 3. 7) If 4 is true, they don't pursue life or values. 7a) 4 has no value to offer. 7b) 2 is undermined; value is not being acquired. Therefore, 8) Lying seeks nonvalue. [Context] 0) When 1 is undermined, everything else is irrelevant. * "I did not quit, because I needed the job. Even just looking for new employment is a long, annoying (at minimum) process, with no guarantee of success. Should we drag ourselves financially to the point of starvation, at an employer's arbitrary mercy, while we try to get new work? What sense does that make?" This is the same form of argument used by low-wage fast food workers. "I need the job. Looking for a job is not a promise of success. Should I drag myself financially by looking for a lucrative job? I may starve. I'm at my employer's arbitrary mercy, I can't afford to leave for only a potential chance at new work? No other jobs are available! So I am effectively forced to work here. What sense does that make? Raise the minimum wage!" There are always other places to go. Remaining at bad places is irrational. I brought up The Fountainhead, not just because you know it, but because it's probably the best example of independence in a modern world. The supposed "bad" options were not bad, or even torturous, to Roark. He'd sooner quit than say he "needs" the job. He didn't starve. That's the point of the book! You aren't going to die by not having to rely on second-handed or irrational people for a job - independence is possible, even employment independence.

What about a theme park, called Government Land? Or a spa? Perhaps running a record label, called Washington's Headphones?

"My boss can't help me and I have to quit" You don't have to quit. It's their choice to keep you or not. Supposing it ends up as being fired, why is it bad? You care more about getting by to a paycheck through manipulation? "I got to the second interview and tell them I had to quit and they don't understand why I made such a big fuss about another interview and quit my previous job. They'll view me as idealistic and impractical and not someone they want working there." More like you'd explain why you got fired: because you were honest in a simple way and allow your employer to decide. If that's too fussy, and too idealistic, why work there? "I have to quit and don't land the other job. I'll have a terrible Nov-Jan period because I'll be unemployed and stressed out rather than focused on growing, learning, studying, enjoying" Would you be starving? What changes in February? Can you monetize existing skills of yours? Did you quit instead? If not, why not?

I didn't say "reveal all". DreamWeaver's approach is fine, where it leaves the issue at "personal matter". A lie is something that is false, and the person saying it knows it is false. A lie is a form of manipulation. The whole point of a healthy society is that while it is important at least not to violate rights, letting people make their own decision - moral or otherwise - is part of how to cultivate beneficial relations. To be clear, in terms of Objectivism, I think Rand didn't have the time to examine what virtue demands when seeking the best social environment, as she had to establish first and elaborate on selfishness. Even so, I'm saying that all people must be treated as worthwhile traders in some respect, unless they demonstrate themselves to be irrational. I like StrictlyLogical's post best. LoBogola, to get you thinking of all angles here, what are potential good consequences you can think of by following SL's option number 2? What principles would you apply to find an answer?

By assumption, I mean illogical or baseless reasoning. Subject to cognitive biases, rather than reason. Much of the reasoning LoBogola offered was in fact attempted mind reading, imagining what this boss would do, trying to presume you know the person will be irrational when I was given an example of rational behavior, and totally missiing any benefits of telling the truth. Bottom line is, lying is a clear evasion of either a bad environment, or evasion that a lie is making something up that is false in order to manipulate someone. All lies are manipulation! The very fact that we're trying to justify a lie seems to be abdicating honesty as a virtue, turning honesty into a means for social harmony, and lying as sacrificing others to yourself. This is literally what The Fountainhead is about. Roark worked in a quarry rather than attempting to be pragmatic and lie as needed. Keating opted to give into all the social harmony of pragmatism so he could make decent money. Keating would lie to get his way, and everyone else did. He is a prime example of someone who thinks about what is best for himself in terms of getting by, but was so worried about what others might do, he was plain spineless. Roark was perfectly glad to work in a quarry, it wasn't torture. In other words, lying is dishonest plain and simple. We're not talking about a life at risk here, where lying is literally required to prevent destruction. But in the context of trade, lying is dishonest.

I gave three alternatives, one even grants the possibility to be fired. "It "looks" worse for her to give random leave to any employee for time off then to lose one in natural turnover." Assumption that your employer cares more about "looks" than the reality. If it is true, why are you working there? To say paying bills is your reason, fine, but if your assumption is true, you're implying that you don't care about the company being good, you'll work anywhere, even if the place is terrible morally speaking. In any case, assumptions are bad, so lying emphasizes that you want to ignore your own assumptions and take them as truth. "What if she found a way to let me off, or even offered to conspire by telling me to call in sick (since she’s somewhat powerless here). " What if she did the right thing and got you time off legitimately? What you've deemed likely is without reasons, and dependent on an employer being equal to "The Man" trying to screw you over.

To the first part, I agree. It is just a narrative to describe what would be unprincipled ways to think, and thought processes to avoid. To the second part, lying would go in that manner only if there is some reason to say the call center job is a disvalue and the people involved are irrational So yeah, lying is not intrinsically immoral - I just see no reason that it is moral in this case. Generally, I only see lying as appropriate in circumstances where people truly are irrational, or your life is at risk. I'm posing this situation in a way that telling the truth has good consequences.

No, I just didn't want to seem like I was snide to you. I'm saying that circumstances matter, except there is no particular reason to lie. There is no principle to suggest it. The supposed losses are assumptions, not facts. There is no being honest with yourself if the objective is to present yourself as different - wearing a mask to get by. "I'll lie that I'm sick, be indirect and imply what I mean without saying it, suck up to the bosses, play them as fools who don't deserve to judge for themselves if they want me around. Who cares about my integrity? They're losers anyway. Why be just? They're bad bosses. Why be productive? They don't -really- care if I sneak out of my job. Why be rational? They'll fire on a whim anyway. Why be prideful in my ability? They'll fire me the moment I do something not written down, so I need to hide when I seek more." Your earlier response, as far as I could tell, was predicated on the improbability that anyone else knows what they're doing. If they -really- don't know what they're doing, then there is no rational reason to continue working there anyway. Staying at the job is lying to oneself in that case. Except, it doesn't sound like a totally incompetent call center.

Honesty, as a virtue, then, requires admitting the job is worth quitting, and now is a good time. Mere pragmatism, in contrast, requires keeping the job for that paycheck, and it is impractical to reveal intentions which could make people at your job like you less and maybe fire you. The "loss" of honesty is finding out that you might be accommodated in the end, or discovering you're surrounded by Keatings - or perhaps realizing you are one of those Keatings by needing to hide who you are from corporate hacks. you = general you

Sounds like there is a policy to be honest. Not, as Jaskn seems to suggest, an incompetent set of managers or bad policies. It would be a fine case of evasion here, to just lie as if the other people are fools and can't make their own decision about how to react. You don't know you'll be fired, don't assume you will. If you are a good worker, they'd keep you around and accommodate you. If you aren't a good worker, they might not, in which case you're lying to avoid your own poor work so you won't be fired. If you are a good worker and they don't accommodate, what're you doing at a job that doesn't care about good employees?

Quining Qualia, a paper by Daniel Denett, should be a good start.

Right, as in a baby won't form the concept for a while, so it's more like what a dog thinks as good. Once older, they're able to abstract the experience into a concept. So good is a term to refer to that type of experience, at least on epistemological theories that accepts concepts as "grounded" in perception as Objectivism does. The experience is not itself perception of good, we refer to the experience as good. As you said, we see no good. You are right about why ice melts, but it doesn't say why it has to act in THAT way. Why not do something else? Why does reality have that nature? The neural mechanisms to provide for experiences to be as they are or to produce experiences are so far not too detailed. But why it feels THAT way has to be taken as it is, at its level of abstraction.

"You can't get there by dismissing them out of hand..." I never said to dismiss someone out of hand anyway, that is rarely rational if ever. By saying someone has done something immoral, I'm not always advocating avoiding all interaction, and I'm not saying I can't be in error. It does, however, mean using moral judgment as a measure to determine what value they have to offer. Unfortunately, for some people, making a moral judgment against someone is so infused with anger that it is hardly rational. To me, it only -has- to be saying "it's a stupid idea to do that". It varies though. post # 2, 5, and 25 address ways to consider exactly what impact a person has on you. Keep in mind that immoral actions indirectly harm values of yours insofar as the person is in your life and is connected to at least a few values, so it's a lot to do with attaining value without promoting vice.

That's like Ilya claiming Kant is a materialist...