You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Perhaps anarchy already exists and "THE COMMUNITY" is merely the highest manifestation of organized crime.
I believe both, but the latter isn't
necessarily right or just, it's simply
evidence that the law of the jungle reigns
supreme behind the illusion of bc/morality.
I think reputations may have been tarnished
on both sides a little bit. Had Sun been put
on notice that the community will fork away
and null his stake on the new iteration if he
tries to fork with astroturf witnesses, then
the action would have seemed more like a
an honorable and defensive move to me.
The professor in your Harvard lecture is a charming and charismatic CON-ARTIST.
He's leading the students down his primrose-path, while dodging FUNDAMENTAL LOGIC, by presenting false-dichotomy after false-dichotomy.
The very definitions of "utilitarian" and "ethics" are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
This professor never considers basic definitions (PRIMARY AXIOMS).
This professor didn't even hint that the very definition of "murder" is critically flawed.
Then he calls KANT'S DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS, "categorical ethics"? WTF?
Aren't all categories of ethics technically "categorical"??
The only person who made a lick of sense was the very last audience member who spoke about feeding their family. +PROHUMAN +PROFAMILY
There areprobably hundreds of problems with this entire discussion, but two very important topics which were 100% absent include "the fundamental attribution error" AND "human instinct".
They don't call it the trolley problem for nothing.
If you send the trolley down path (A) to save the people
in path (B) are you responsible for killing the people in (A)?
How can one decide or not decide knowing that doing either
will condemn one group to death while sparing the other group?
Notice I left out murder in exchange for killing because we common
folks tend to conflate the meaning of the two. Killing is more of an
amoral term, so we don't have to address the intention of the act.
Moral absolutism doesn't do so well when pitted with this one.
Here is another interesting one for you, it's about meta-ethics.
There are more than relativism vs. absolutism, and probably a
slew of sub-sects to consider as well, he covers a lot in ten mins.
different schools of thought and how they may see the Trolley problem.
This is a very impressive appeal-to-ignorance (don't get me wrong, I love watching this stuff).
Let's try this.
(1) Please make your personally preferred definition of "fact" explicit.
(2) Please make your personally preferred definition of "morality" explicit.
(3) Please tell me if you personally believe that (1) and (2) are mutually exclusive.
If moral absolutism could be compared
to theism and moral relativism to
atheism, then I'm agnostic.
I realize, those are big ifs.
What do you think of these "absolute" AXIOMS?
AXIOM #1 - PROTECT YOURSELF
AXIOM #2 - PROTECT YOUR FAMILY
AXIOM #3 - PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY
I disagree. (IFF) you subscribe to a principle-less pure power-for-power's-sake "law-of-the-jungle" (THEN) telegraphing your intentions to your rival (via threats) is frighteningly naive.
I don't subscribe to just one, I think
both exist, and both have their place.
I can go on a Safari with a long arm &
shoot a Lion just because I can do it.
Or I can go on a Safari with a long
arm & shoot a Lion in self defense.
They both demonstrate law of the
jungle, but the latter was within
the realm of reasonableness if
am protecting my or someone
else's life in a lion attack. Guy's
post seems to suggest that we
can fork if he chooses to go his
own way w/o comm support.
You can't subscribe to "optional" principles.
If you consider principles "optional", then THEY'RE NOT PRINCIPLES.
A principle is something you follow no-matter-what-the-cost.
If you can be bribed or bullied - then you had no principles in the first place.
So if you go on a Safari because you're
an animal lover, and the tour guide is
attacked by one lion in a pack of lions.
Do you shoot that lion with his rifle or
not? Mind you, if you don't, what will
end up happening is one of the other
lions will attack the group. The keys
to the automobile are in the pants
of the man getting attacked by the
lion. So, you either go against your
principles and kill the animal. Or
let the animal eat the tour guide
keys and all, and wait for the rest
of the pack to eat the group?
It's a trolley problem whereby
one's inner principles & morals
are challenged based on events.
I think you might like this, it is a
free Harvard lecture about Justice.
It can be easy to view things solely in
black and white, but on rare occasion
life gets in the way and muddles it all up.
Click to watch 2 minutes,
Exactly..... a choice is not a choice,
in and of itself! The Harvard lecture
is edifying though, even beyond the
trolley problem there is much to learn.
Here's the best part,
Click to watch 6 minutes,
: -)
I've been told repeatedly by high-ranking-community-leaders, "if you don't like it, start your own blockchain".
That's exactly what they should have done (since that's the advice they give to everyone else).
Can't argue that, also since the community
divide will likely result in two blockchains.
This means, you don't have to collect the
airdrop on the sisterchain. You can just
use the tron/steem chain if ya want.
Does this mean that steemcleaners and cheetahbot and marky will GO AWAY??
Hmmmm, that might be interesting!!
Good question.